Hi 


if 


Mi 


i 


If)    I 


■L 

IP™ 


!  I  I 


!i 


HBH 


iijiliilili  I       iiiiiiil!; 


GIFT   OF 

Mrs.    W.    D.    Baker 


JESUS 


BY  GEORGE  HOLLEY  GILBERT 


The  Student's  Life  of  Jesus,  third  edition,  1900. 

The  Revelation  of  Jesus,  1899. 

The  First  Interpreters  of  Jesus,  1901. 

A  Primer  of  the  Christian  Religion,  1902. 

Interpretation  of  the  Bible,  1908. 

The  Book  of  Acts,  1908. 

The  Student's  Life  of  Paul,  1899. 


THE    MACMILLAN    COMPANY 

Publishers      64-56  Fifth  Avenue       New  York 


JESUS 


BY 

GEORGE  HOLLEY  GILBERT 
•i 

Ph.D.,  Leipzig  University 
D.D.,  Dartmouth  College 


»  >    »    i    > 
»   >      • 


Jgeto  gotfe 

THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

1912 

^//  rijetftt  reserved 


0- 


COFYHIGHT,    1912 

By  THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 


Set  up  and  clcctrotypcd.     Published  September,   ip:.z 


'"' 


r/ 


TO  THE  MEMORY 
OF 

IBectfm  ©ate*  ©ilftett 

A  NEAR  DISCIPLE  OF  THE  MASTER 

WHO  TO  THE  LAST  HOUR  OF  HER  YOUNG  LIFE 

SOUGHT  TO  DO 

"SOMETHING  GOOD  AND  BRAVE" 


M106109 


PREFACE 

A  different  view  of  the  sources  of  our  knowledge  of 
Jesus  makes  necessary  a  different  story  of  his  life.  The 
decade  and  a  half  since  my  Student's  Life  of  Jesus  was 
published  has  witnessed  a  wide  and  important  change 
among  scholars  in  their  estimate  of  the  historical  value 
of  these  various  sources.  In  that  change  I  have  shared. 
Trained  in  the  belief  that  the  four  Gospels  are  independ- 
ent and  supplementary  accounts  of  the  career  of  Jesus, 
each  having  its  own  point  of  view  indeed  but  each  also 
worthy  of  acceptance  as  essentially  historical,  I  have  come 
slowly,  through  prolonged  study  of  the  text,  to  results 
in  respect  to  the  sources  which  render  it  easier  to  re- 
write my  book  than  to  revise  it.  These  results  and  the 
steps  by  which  they  were  reached  are  stated  in  Part  I. 

But  though  this  book  registers  essential  modification 
of  that  view  of  the  sources  which  was  formerly  held, 
and  though,  in  consequence,  it  presents  a  somewhat 
different  picture  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  it  is  nevertheless 
bound  to  the  earlier  editions  by  two  bonds,  viz.,  a  pur- 
pose to  get  at  the  simple  facts  and  an  unchanged  view 
of  the  vital  work  of  the  Master. 

Influenced  no  doubt  by  the  conclusions  of  fellow- 
workers — perhaps  more  deeply  influenced  than  I  am 
aware — it  is  yet  true  that  the  sources  themselves,  studied 
for  the  satisfaction  of  personal  desire  to  know  the  truth, 
have  led  to  every  statement  in  the  following  story.  No 
ecclesiastical  authority  or  institutional  connection  has 
been  present  to  influence,  either  for  good  or  for  ill,  the 
weighing  of  evidence,  or  the  portrayal  of  results. 

As  to  the  second  bond  of  unity,  it  seems  proper  to  say, 
in  view  of  negative  conclusions  on  such  subjects  as  the 
supernatural  birth  of  Jesus  and  his  material  resurrection, 
that  critical  study  of  the  sources  has  not  lessened  but 
rather  increasingly  deepened  my  sense  of  the  greatness 

vii 


yiii  PREFACE 

of  Jesus  and  of  the  adequacy  of  his  revelation  to  the 
needs  of  mankind.  The  conviction  that  he  never  called 
from  the  tomb  a  man  who  had  been  dead  four  days  does 
not  in  the  slightest  degree  weaken  my  faith  in  him  as 
able  to  give  spiritual  life  to  men,  for  that  faith  rests  on 
evidence  immeasurably  stronger  than*  the  story  of  Laz- 
arus would  be  were  it  historically  well  established.  Again, 
the  belief  that  the  "mighty  works"  of  Jesus  were,  in 
his  own  thought  of  his  mission,  incidental  and  subord- 
inate, and  that  they  in  no  case  transcended  the  power 
of  a  man  who  works  with  God — for  such  a  man  is  open, 
we  believe,  to  incalculable  spiritual  forces — does  not  at 
all  impair  my  confidence  in  him  as  a  revealer  of  God, 
or  in  his  wisdom  as  the  founder  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  on  earth.  The  story  of  his  life  to  be  drawn  from 
the  sources  after  the  work  of  criticism  has  been  done  is 
a  story  abundantly  suited  to  inspire  confidence  in  him,  as 
the  spiritual  leader  of  mankind,  and  the  practice  of  his 
teaching  invariably  confirms  that  confidence. 

This  book  therefore,  though  much  unlike  its  predeces- 
sor, is  yet,  I  would  believe,  one  with  that  in  spirit,  and 
more  truly  constructive  because  resting  on  a  more  ade- 
quate analysis  and  estimate  of  the  sources. 

If  it  should  appear  to  any  readers  that  the  space  given 
to  the  consideration  of  The  Legendary  Jesus  is  too  great, 
let  these  things  be  borne  in  mind :  First,  that  some  of  the 
questions  here  discussed,  like  the  story  of  the  resurrec- 
tion, are  exceedingly  complex  and  can  least  of  all  be  dis- 
missed in  a  summary  manner;  and,  second,  that  the 
treatment  of  certain  topics  under  the  head  of  The  Leg- 
endary Jesus  does  not  imply  an  entire  lack  of  value,  even 
historical  value,  in  these  topics.  But  to  ascertain  the 
nature  and  extent  of  the  truth  involved,  it  is  needful  to 
recognize  the  limits  of  the  legendary  element. 

It  requires  no  special  gift  for  divining  the  future 
course  of  events  to  see  two  things  which  will  sooner  or 
later  come  to  pass  in  consequence  of  the  critical  inves- 
tigation of  the  sources  of  the  life  of  Jesus  in  our  day, 
first,  an  unsettling  of  the  faith  of  some  people  in  him, 
and  second,  a  reaction  on  the  part  of  many  Christians 


PREFACE 


IX 


from  the  new  views  and  an  attempt  to  support  the  totter- 
ing heritage  of  devout  but  unscientific  ages.  In  helping 
to  carry  the  Church  forward  through  such  times  of  stress 
and  to  establish  it  in  a  larger  and  truer  conception  of  the 
Master  there  is  perhaps  no  higher  service  which  New 
Testament  scholars  can  render  than  to  set  forth,  with  the 
utmost  patience  and  accuracy,  the  simple  facts  of  his 
life,  assured  that  nothing  can  so  further  the  Jesus-type 
of  religious  life  as  an  intelligent  acquaintance  with  Jesus 
himself. 

I  cannot  conclude  this  prefatory  word  without  an  ac- 
knowledgment of  the  valuable  suggestions  given  me 
by  two  of  my  friends  and  fellow-workers  in  the  field  of 
New  Testament  research,  Professor  Irving  F.  Wood, 
Ph.D.,  of  Smith  College,  and  Professor  Ernest  De  Witt 
Burton,  D.D.,  of  the  University  of  Chicago. 


Dorset,  Vermont 
February  12,  1912. 


CONTENTS 


Preface     

PART   I.    THE  SOURCES 

CHAPTER 

I.    The  Synoptic  Gospels     .     . 


III.    Other  Sources  for  the  Life  of  Jesus 


vii 


PAGE 

3 


II.     The  Fourth  Gospel 51 


73 


PART  II.    THE  HISTORICAL  JESUS 

I.  The  World  in  which  Jesus  Lived  . 

II.  Origin  and  Early  Life 

IN.  Entrance  into  Public  Life     .     .     . 

IV.  What  Jesus  Thought  of  Himself     . 

V.  The  Ideal  of  Jesus  for  His  People 

VI.  The  Resources  and  the  Method  of  Jesus     168 

VII.  From  the  Jordan  to  Caesarea  Philippi   .     183 

VIII.     From  Caesarea  Philippi  to  the  Triumphal 

Entry 200 

IX.     From  the  Triumphal  Entry  to  Golgotha     215 

xi 


87 
115 
123 

139 

154 


XI 1  CONTENTS 

PART  III.    THE   LEGENDARY  JESUS 

CHAPTER  PAGF. 

I.    Legends   of   the   Birth   and   Infancy  of 

Jesus 239 

II.     Legends  of  the  Ministry  of  Jesus      .     .  256 

III.     The  Legend  of  a  Material  Resurrection  275 

INDEXES 

1.  To  the  Logia 309 

2.  To   thk   Earliest   Gospel   with  Synoptic 

Parallels 311 

3.  To  Matthew's  Peculiar  Material  .     .     .  318 

4.  To  Luke's  Peculiar  Material     ....  318 

5.  To  the  Fourth  Gospel 319 

Corrigenda 321 


PART  I 
THE  SOURCES 


O  1        ) 

1     J     I ) 

>  3       1) 


CHAPTER  l\t     ;  r   [j\\\\\ 
THE  SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS 

I.    Two  ways  of  treating  the  Gospels  as  Sources  of  the 
Life  of  Jesus. 

There  have  long  been  and  still  are  two  radically  differ- 
ent methods  of  treating  the  Gospels  as  sources  of  infor- 
mation on  the  life  of  Jesus.  One  method — very  ancient 
and  having  the  sanction  of  many  great  names — is  to 
approach  them  as  books  of  supernatural  origin,  and  hence 
as  altogether  true  and  harmonious  one  with  the  others. 
But  this  view,  though  it  is  ancient,  cannot  claim  to  be  the 
earliest.  It  cannot  appeal  to  the  men  who  produced  the 
Gospels,  or  to  the  first  generation  of  Christians  who  used 
them.  Not  only  do  the  writers  themselves  make  no 
claim  to  supernatural  aid  or  intimate  in  any  wise  that 
their  method  of  procedure  was  extraordinary,  but  the 
only  one  of  them  who  alludes  to  the  way  in  which  he  went 
about  his  work  reveals  clearly  that  the  thought  of  super- 
natural aid  did  not  enter  his  mind.  Luke's  introduction 
to  his  Gospel1  claims  only  that  he  had  made  a  careful  and 
thorough  investigation  of  all  accessible  sources  of  infor- 
mation. He  had  searched  and  discriminated  and  tested, 
and  thus  had  written  his  story.  Many  before  him  had 
drawn  up  narratives  on  the  same  subject,  but  it  is  obvious 
that  no  one  of  these  narratives  wholly  satisfied  him,  for 
in  that  case  he  would  not  have  troubled  himself  to  pro- 
duce another.  He  looked  at  them  all  critically,  and 
either  in  what  they  said  or  what  they  left  unsaid  they 
appeared  to  him  seriously  defective.  This  glimpse  that 
Luke  affords  us  into  his  mode  of  work  might,  so  far  as 
we  know,  have  been  given  also  by  the  writers  of  the  first 
and  the  second  Gospels.    They,  too,  using  their  best  judg- 

*Luke  i  :i-4« 


THE   SOURCES 


ment, -discriminated  and.  selected  from  the  material  at 
Hand.  •  Analycii:  of  /thejr."  Gospels,  especially  of  that  of 
Matthew,  clearly  shows  that  they  as  well  as  Luke  handled 
their  materials  with  freedom. 

Further,  as  the  writers  of  the  Gospels  thought  of  their 
work,  so  for  a  considerable  time  do  others  appear  to  have 
regarded  it.  J  Clemen!  of  Rome  (writing  about  ioo  A.  D.) 
has  occasional  quotations  from  the  words  of  Jesus,1  but 
gives  no  intimation  whence  he  had  derived  them,  whether 
from  documents  or  oral  tradition.  The  same  is  true  of 
the  Epistle  to  Diognetus,2  Polycarp's  (fi66  A.  D.) 
Epistle  to  the  Philip  pious*  Ignatius  (fi38  A.  D.)  in  his 
Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,4  to  the  Romans,6  to  the  Smyr- 
ttaeans,9  to  Polycarp,7  and  true  also  of  the  Epistle  of 
Barnabas*  These  writers  of  the  early  second  century 
make  occasional  references  to  Gospel  words  and  incidents 
— much  more  frequent  reference  to  the  Old  Testament — 
but  they  neither  mention  a  written  source,  nor  do  their 
quotations  and  allusions  necessarily  imply  such  a  source. 
If,  then,  they  knew  any  of  our  Gospels — which  can  not 
be  affirmed — it  is  clearly  improbable  that  they  ascribed 
to  them  any  peculiar  not  to  say  supernatural  authority. 
Papias,  bishop  of  Hierapolis  in  Phrygia  (writing  about 
130  A.  D.),  is  the  first  to  make  definite  reference  to  our 
evangelical  literature.  He  says  that  "Mark,  having 
become  the  interpreter  of  Peter,  wrote  down  accurately 
whatsoever  he  remembered,"  i.e.,  what  he  remembered  to 
have  heard  Peter  say.9  There  is  obviously  no  more  sug- 
gestion here  of  supernatural  aid  than  in  what  Luke  had 
said  long  before  about  his  own  writing. 

To  Papias  is  also  ascribed  a  remarkable  saying  to  this 
effect,  that  what  he  got  from  books — such  books  as  the 
Gospels  of  Luke  and  Mark — was  not  so  profitable  as  that 

1  See    First    Epistle,    chpts.    13,  24,    27,    46- 

1  See   chpts.   8,   9.  '  See  chpts.    1,  2. 

8  See   chpts,    2,   6,    7.  T  See    ch.    2. 

4  Sec  chpts.  5,  0,   14.   17,   19.  "See  ch.  5. 

5  See   ch.    6.  •  See  Eusebius,  History,  3,  39,   16. 


THE   SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS  5 

which  he  drew  from  the  stream  of  living  tradition,  that 
is,  what  he  had  heard  one  and  another  say  who  had 
listened  to  the  first  disciples.1  This  word  clearly  indi- 
cates that  Papias,  though  he  is  said  to  have  written  a 
commentary  on  the  sayings  of  the  Lord,2  gave  to  Mark's 
Gospel  and  to  Matthew's  "oracles,"  of  which  he  speaks 
in  the  same  fragment,  no  absolute  authority.  Both  living 
tradition  and  written  narrative  he  regarded  as  alike  trust- 
worthy. 

In  Justin  Martyr  (fi65  A.  D.)  the  Gospels  come  into 
clear  view,  for  he  says  that  they  were  read  in  the  weekly 
gatherings  of  Christians,  together  with  the  Prophets.3  He 
calls  them  tnemorabilia  ( dirofxvrjixoveviJjaTa ) ,  a  term  which 
is  suggestive  rather  of  the  exercise  of  human  judgment 
in  their  composition  than  of  supernatural  aid. 

But  before  the  century  of  Papias  and  Justin  closed  a 
new  view  of  the  Gospels,  as  of  all  the  New  Testament, 
was  well  established.  Irenaeus  (115-202  A.  D.)  says 
that  the  apostles  had  perfect  knowledge  after  the  Holy 
Spirit  had  come  upon  them,  and  that  they  did  equally 
and  individually  possess  the  Gospel  of  Christ.4  The  four 
Gospels  are  now  regarded  as  the  four  necessary  aspects 
of  the  one  Gospel  and  are  said  to  have  been  given  by  the 
Artificer  of  all  things.5  This  high  view,  with  various 
modifications  by  individual  writers,  is  fully  and  frequently 
expressed  in  the  first  half  of  the  third  century,  and  it  has 
been  dominant  in  the  Church  from  that  time  to  the 
present. 

The  second  way  of  treating  the  Gospels  as  sources  for 
the  life  of  Jesus  is  to  regard  them  as  natural  products  of 
the  early  Church.  It  is  to  approach  them  in  precisely  the 
same  spirit  in  which  Luke  tells  us  that  he  produced  his 
Gospel.  While  therefore  it  may  be  called  the  modern 
method  in  distinction  from  that  of  tradition,  it  is  never- 

1  Sec   F.us.   Hist.,   3,  39.  4- 
Hist..  3.  39.  *• 
»  See  First  Apology,  67. 
c  Ad.  haer.,  3,  I,  I. 
•See  Ad.  haer.,  1,  11,  8. 


6  THE   SOURCES 

theless  simply  the  method  which  the  preface  to  Luke's 
Gospel  requires.  We  do  not  say  that  this  method  has  no 
other  justification  than  that  which  flows  from  the  man- 
ner in  which  the  evangelists  used  their  materials  and  the 
way  in  which  the  subsequent  generation  regarded  the 
Gospels,  but  only  that  this  justification  is  quite  adequate. 
If  Luke's  procedure  was  reasonable,  then  this  modern 
method  of  treating  the  Gospels  is  also  reasonable.  They 
are  to  be  approached  and  analyzed  as  natural  products  of 
the  early  Church.  There  is  no  absolute  line  of  separation 
between  them  and  other  products  of  that  Church  which 
deal  with  the  same  subject,  as  the  Gospel  of  Peter  and 
the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews.  There  is,  demon- 
strably, no  clear  line  of  demarcation  between  Luke's  Gos- 
pel and  the  narratives  which  he  says  had  been  drawn  up 
before  he  wrote,  for  one  of  Luke's  predecessors  was 
Mark,  and  no  one  will  assert  that  an  absolute  distinction 
is  to  be  made  between  the  writings  of  these  men. 

2.     The  Sayings  of  Jesus  (called  also  the  Logia  and  Ql). 

The  first  written  contribution  to  our  Gospel  literature 
is  now  commonly  held  by  scholars  to  have  been  a  collection 
of  the  words  of  Jesus.  Papias  ascribed  what  may  well 
have  been  such  a  composition,  which  he  called  the  Logia, 
to  the  apostle  Matthew,2  and  says  that  it  was  written  in 
the  Hebrew  tongue,  that  is,  the  Aramaic  dialect  which 
was  then  spoken  by  the  Jews  of  Palestine.  He  could  jtjQt 
have  had  the  first.  .Gospel  in  mind,  for  the  term  which  he 
used,  Logia,  oracles  or  sayings,  does  not  properly  describe 
that  Gospel,  large  sections  of  which  (e.g.,  chpts.  1-2, 
27-28)  are  purely  narrative ;  and  further,  it  has  long  been 
agreed  that  our  first  Gospel  was  not  written  in  Aramaic 
but  in  Greek.  At  the  same  time,  however,  no  separate 
document  containing  the  words  of  Jesus  is  known  to  have 
been  extant  in  the  Church  at  the  beginning  of  the  second 
century.  Papias  does  not  intimate  that  he  had  ever  seen 
such  a  writing.  But  a  collection  of  the  words  of  the 
Master,  made  by  one  of  his  apostles,  was  surely  a  thing 

1  First  letter  of  the  German  word  Quelle  — source. 
3  See  Eusebius,  Church  History,  3,  39,    16. 


THE   SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS  7 

which,  though  its  form  might  be  variously  modified,  could 
not  easily  be  lost  while  the  Church  remained  loyal  to 
Jesus.  Hence  there  is  a  strong  presumption  that  this 
early  collection  of  the  Lord's  sayings  was  indeed  pre- 
served in  a  writing  or  writings  of  later  origin  which  were 
everywhere  known  and  accepted. 

Now  this  presumption  is  strikingly  confirmed  by  the 
literary  analysis  of  the  first  and  third  Gospels.  A  definite 
collection  of  the  sayings  of  Jesus  is  here  discovered.  For 
the  authors  of  these  writings  have  in  common  a  certain 
body  of  Jesus'  words,  and  neither  of  them  drew  this  com- 
mon  material  from  the  other.1  The  necessary  inference 
therefore  is  that  both  writers  drew  it  from  a  common 
source,2  in  other  words,  that  some  previously  existing  col- 
lection of  the  sayings  of  Jesus  was  taken  up  and  absorbed 
in  our  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke.  This  collection  I 
was  probably  older  than  Mark's  Gospel.  The  fact  that  it  | 
is  the  only  collection  of  Jesus'  sayings  which  was  incor- 
porated in  any  two  of  the  Gospels  implies  that  it  was 
widely  regarded  as  the  standard  collection,  and  this  fact, 
while  it  might  be  explained  by  the  eminence  of  its  com- 
piler, is  more  adequately  explained  if  we  suppose  that  it 
had  also  been  a  long  time  in  circulation.  Again,  as  com- 
pared with  the  earliest  Gospel,  this  collection  implies  a 
higher  antiquity  by  virtue  of  its  greater  simplicity  with 
regard  to  the  person  of  Jesus  and  with  regard  to  the  super- 
natural. It  is  relatively  free  from  that  interpretative  ele- 
ment which  is  found  in  all  the  Gospels. 

j.     The  Extent  and  General  Content  of  the  Logia. 

The  words  of  Jesus  which  Matthew  and  Luke  have  in 
commonand  which  are  not  found  elsewhere,  if  we  include 
with  tnem  the  preaching  of  the  Baptist  which  also  is 
peculiar  to  Matthew  and  Luke,  amount  approximately  to 
one-sixth  of  the  entire  narrative.8     Assuming  for  the 

*For  detailed  proof  that  Matthew  and  Luke  wrote  independently  of  each 
other  the  reader  is  referred  to  recent  works  on  New  Testament  Introduction. 
*It  is  of  course  possible  that  they  used  different  editions  of  the  Logic 
•Hawkins,  Horae  Synopticae,  sec.  ed.  1909,  p.  110,  counts  186  verses  and 
six  fragments  in  Matthew,  179  verses  and  four,  fragments  m  Luke  as  from 
the  Logia;  Huck's  Synopse  sets  off  231  verses  in  Matthew  and  210  in  Luke 
as  parallel;   Holtzmann,  Z?as  Leben  Jesu,   1901,   credits  Matthew  with  441 


8  THE   SOURCES 

present  that  this  ancient  document  contained  substantially 
only  what  is  strictly  common  to  Matthew  and  Luke,  the 
following  is  a  brief  sketch  of  its  content,  not  in  the  order 
of  the  original  document  itself,  for  that  order  cannot  be 
determined,  but  in  the  order  of  Matthew. 

There  is,  first,  the  Baptist's  call  to  repentance  with  the 
solemn  word  that  the  Messiah  who  is  near  will  deal  as  a 
judge  with  the  wheat  and  the  chaff  j1  then  the  story  of  the 
Temptation;2  then  a  group  of  nineteen  sayings  put  by 
Matthew  in  a  single  discourse  but  assigned  by  Luke  to  at 
least  five  different  occasions;8  the  centurion  of  Caper- 
naum;4 words  to  would-be  disciples;5  words  to  the  dis- 
ciples when  they  were  sent  out  to  preach  and  heal  which 
Matthew  associates  with  the  mission  of  the  Twelve 
alone,6  but  which  Luke  associates  in  part  with  the  mis- 
sion of  the  Twelve,7  in  part  with  that  of  Seventy,8  and  in 
part  with  other  occasions  ;8  the  message  to  John  the  Bap- 
tist,10 and  witness  borne  concerning  him  ;"  woes  on  certain 
Galilean  cities  ;12  thanksgiving  to  the  Father  for  his  reve- 
lation to  "babes  ;"18  a  word  on  the  treasure  of  the  heart  ;14 
a  defense  against  the  charge  of  cooperating  with  Beelze- 
bub ;15  words  on  the  craving  for  signs  ;16  on  a  second  pos- 
session by  unclean  spirits;17  on  the  blessedness  of  dis- 
ciples ;18  the  parable  of  the  Leaven  ;18  words  on  the  might 

verses  from  the  Logia  and  Luke  with  217;  Wernle,  Die  Synoftische  Frage, 
1899,  gives  Matthew  314  verses  and  Luke  330;  Harnack,  The  Sayings  of 
Jesus,  gives  Matthew  but  202  verses  and  Luke  195.  The  extent  of  the 
Logia  varies  according  as  one  limits  it  to  what  is  strictly  common  to  Mat- 
thew and  Luke,  or  allows  it  to   have  included  somewhat   more. 

*Mt  3:7-io=Lk.  3=7*9;  Mt  3:i2=Lk.  3:17. 

sMt  4:3-n=Lk.  4:3*13- 

•Mt  5:1-4,  6=Lk.  6:30-21;  Mt.  s:n-i2=Lk.  6:20-23;  Mt  5:i8=Lk.  16: 
17:  Mt.  s:2S-26=Lk.  12:58-59;  Mt.  5:39,  40,  42=Lk.  6:29-30;  Mt.  5:44-48 
=Lk.  6:27-28,  32-33.  36;  Mt.  6:9-i3=Lk.  11:2-4;  Mt.  6:20-2i=Lk.  12:33-34; 
Mt  6:22-23  =  Lk.  11:34-35;  Mt  6:24=Lk.  6:13;  Mt  6:25*33=Lk.  12:22-31; 
Mt  7:i-2=Lk.  6:37-38;  Mt.  7:3-5=Llc  6:41-42;  Mt  7:7-n=Lk.  ii:9-:3; 
Mt  7:ia=Lk.  6:31;  Mt  7:i3-i4=Lk.  13:23-24;  Mt  7:2i=Lk.  6:46;  Mt  7: 
22-23 =Lk.  13:26-27;  Mt  7:24-27=Lk.  6:47*49- 

*Mt  8:5-io=Lk.  7:1-3,  6-9;  Mt  8:n-i2=Lk.  13:28-29. 


•Mt 

8:*9-22-=Lk.   9 

:57*6o. 

•Lk.  10: 

I-I2. 

•Mt 

9:37*10:38. 

•Lk.   12: 

2-9,    1 

tl-12 

.   Si' 

53; 

-4:25-27. 

■Lk.  | 

"»:i-5- 

10  Mt   11 

.2-6  = 

:Lk. 

7:18-21 

aMt 

n:7-i9=Lk.   7 

:  2  4-28,  31- 

35; 

16:16   (?) 

. 

"Mt 

ii  :2i-24=Lk. 

10:13-15. 

"Mt 

11 :25-27"-rLk. 

10:21-22. 

"Mt 

i2:35=Lk.  6:._ 

45. 

"Mt 

12:22-23,  27-28,   3o=Lk. 

11 

!,vsr 

23. 

18  Mt 

i3:i6-i7=Lk. 

10:23-24. 

12:38 

■42  = 

Lk. 

1 1 : 

29-32- 

18  Mt 

i3:33=Lk.   13 

:20-2I. 

"Mt 

12:43-45= 

Lk. 

1 1 : 

124-26. 

THE  SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS  9 

of  faith  j1  on  causing  offense  ;2  on  the  twelve  thrones  for 
the  twelve  apostles;3  a  condemnation  of  Pharisaism;4 
words  regarding  the  day  of  the  Son  of  Man;5  a  saying 
about  watchful  servants;6  and  words  about  the  faithful 
and  unfaithful  servant.7 

Thus  this  document  which  Matthew  and  Luke  used  as 
one  of  their  sources,  though  short,  contained  a  wealth  of 
fundamental  teaching.  Its  omissions  are  indeed  notable, 
for  it  had  but  one  parable,  possibly  two,8  no  miracles  that 
seem  to  have  been  introduced  for  their  own  sake,  though 
it  had  the  healing  of  the  centurion's  servant,9  the  healing 
of  a  dumb  demoniac,10  and  a  reference  to  mighty  works 
done  in  three  Galilean  cities;11  it  had  nothing  about  the 
Lord's  Supper,  the  crucifixion  or  the  resurrection.  But 
it  contained  Jesus'  conception  of  the  heavenly  Father,  his 
conception  of  man,  his  ideal  of  human  life,  and  a  clear 
implication  of  his  Messiahship. 

We  remark  in  conclusion  that,  while  an  exact  repro- 
duction of  the  Logia  can  not  be  expected,  there  appears  to 
be  no  good  reason  why  we  should  not  hold  that  its  essen- 
tial character  and  content  are  adequately  made  known  to 
us  through  the  common  material  of  the  Gospels  of  Mat- 
thew and  Luke. 

4.    Biographical  Value  of  the  Logia, 

The  sketch  of  the  general  content  of  the  Logia  in  the 
last  section  shows  the  wide  difference  between  its  sug- 
gestiveness  for  our  view  of  the  life  of  Jesus  and  that 
material  bearing  on  this  subject  which  we  find  in  the  let- 
ters of  Paul.  With  the  exception  of  the  fact  that  Jesus 
had  disciples,  of  whom  twelve  stood  nearer  to  him  than 
the  rest,  the  Logia  gives  us  no  one  of  the  details  which 

»Mt    ,7:*o=Lk.   17:6.  2Mt.    :8:7=Lk.    17:1. 

*ut  %£*£"£%«.   *7,   *9-3X,   34-36,   37-39=Lk.    „*,    .4:nS 

•Mt.   24:42-44  =  Lk.    12:37-40. 

'Mt.  24:45-5i=Lk-   12:41-46. 

•See  Mt.   i8:i2-i4=Lk-   x5:4-7-  T,.2o2Q 

•Mt.  8:5-10,  n-i2=Lk.  7:i-3,  6-9;  13.28-29. 

It.   i2:22  =  Lk.   11:14- 
u  Mt.   n:2i-24=Lk.   io:i3-iS- 


IO  THE  SOURCES 

Paul  has.1  But  this  is  not  the  most  important  aspect  of 
the  matter.  The  Logia,  though  collected  and  preserved 
as  containing  thoughts  of  Jesus,  gives  at  the  same  time  a 
series  of  living,  intense  glimpses  of  his  life,  which  are 
the  more  valuable  as  undesigned  and  incidental.  The 
information  they  convey  often  lacks  definiteness  in  some 
direction :  it  is  not  complete  or  systematic,  but  it  is  vivid 
and  suggestive.  Thus  the  word  that  Jesus  sent  to  the 
Baptist  in  prison  pictures  his  own  life-giving  activity;2  his 
words  concerning  John  mirror  the  attitude  of  men 
toward  himself  and  toward  the  Baptist;8  his  words  to 
would-be  disciples  on  a  certain  occasion  throw  light  on 
his  poverty  at  that  time  and  on  the  moral  deadness  of 
many  who  heard  him  ;*  and  the  saying  about  the  harvest 
and  the  laborers8  gives  a  vivid  suggestion  of  a  very  differ- 
ent state  of  things.  The  woes  on  Galilean  cities  not  only 
locate  a  part  of  his  ministry,  but  also  give  an  intense 
characterization  both  of  its  appeal  and  the  dulness  of  the 
hearts  on  which  the  appeal  fell.6  Again,  through  the 
words  spoken  in  answer  to  the  accusation  brought  against 
Jesus  of  being  in  league  with  Heelzebub7  we  have  light  on 
the  view  which  Jesus  took  of  the  casting  out  of  demons, 
also  on  the  permanency  of  the  cures  effected.  The  saying 
about  Jonah  and  the  Ninevites8  gives  a  broad  characteriza- 
tion of  Jesus'  career  as  a  teaching  ministry,  just  as  the 
word  to  the  disciples  about  divisions9  throws  light  on 
the  variety  of  results  which  his  preaching  had  already 
produced. 

Thus  the  Logia  was  a  document  of  first-rate  importance 
not  only  for  the  message  of  Jesus  which  it  was  intended 
to  preserve,  but  also  for  the  general  character  of  his 
ministry  and  to  some  extent  for  its  specific  course. 

5.     The  First  Narrative  of  the  Career  of  Jesus. 

The  Logia,  or  Sayings,  of  Jesus,  though  warm  with 
biographical  light,  as  we  have  just  seen,  gave  the  reader 

1  See  Part  I,  ch.  3.  4  Mt.  8:i9-22=Lk.  9:57-60. 

3  Mt.  n:2-6  =  Lk.  7:18-23.  5  Mt.  9:37-38=1^.   10:2. 

■Mt.  n:7-9=Lk.  7:24-28,  31-35.  *  Mt.  11 :2i-24=Uc  20:13-15- 

T  Mt.  12:22-23,  27-28,  3o=Lk.   11:14,  19-20,  23. 

•Mt.  i2:39-4o=:Lk.    11:29-30.  •  Mt.   10:34-36=!^  1 2:5 1-53- 


THE   SYNOPTIC   GOSPELS  II 

but  little  detail  of  the  movement  of  Jesus'  career  and  noth- 
ing about  his  death.  It  was  natural  then  that  the  next 
step  in  the  production  of  records  to  be  used  in  extending 
the  new  religion  should  be  a  narrative  giving  prominence 
to  what  Jesus  did  and  suffered.  Such  a  narrative, 
according  to  the  general  consent  of  recent  scholars,  we 
have  in  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  and  this,  as  far  as  we  know,  v 
was  tfie_garlks,t  of  its  kind.  That  it  preceded  the  first  and 
the  third  Gospels  is  shown  by  the  generally  accepted  fact 
that  these  rest  upon  it  as  one  of  their  sources — a  point 
of  which  later  sections  will  furnish  illustrations. 

This  first  account  of  the  career  of  Jesus,  to  which  with 
the  others,  since  the  time  of  Justin  Martyr,  the  name 
Gospel  has  been  given,1  does  not  consist  wholly  of  narra- 
tive, for  about  one-third  of  it  is  words  of  Jesus  (about 
231  verses  out  of  a  total  of  661),  but  narrative  is  its  char- 
acteristic feature.  And  this  narrative  enables  the  reader 
to  follow  the  career  of  Jesus  both  in  its  outward  and  its 
inward  movement,  to  picture  to  himself,  at  least  with  some 
degree  of  completeness,  its  geographical  stages  and  also 
those  critical  events  which  determined  its  course.  This 
is  a  fact  of  such  great  moment  that  it  gives  to  the  Gos- 
pel of  Mark  a  unique  value.  We  shall  briefly  consider 
each  of  these  characteristics. 

And  first,  this  narrative  contains  an  intelligent  geo- 
graphical outline  of  the  public  career  of  Jesus.  It  is  not 
complete  and  is  not  always  clear,  but  it  is  comparatively 
adequate.  The  "wilderness"  (1:13)  is  vague,  the  first 
tour  of  Galilee  leaves  no  definite  local  trace  (1 139),  the 
healing  of  the  leper  is  not  located  (1 140),  a  second  tour 
of  villages  is  mentioned  but  in  a  wholly  general  manner 
(6:6),  the  place  from  which  the  Twelve  are  sent  is  left 
indeterminate  (6  7),  nor  is  any  light  thrown  either  on  the 
direction  or  extent  of  their  activity ;  we  are  not  told  where 
Jesus  was  while  the  Twelve  were  away  on  this  mission ; 
the  narrative  leaves  us  in  doubt  regarding  the  place  where 
the  disciples  met  Jesus  after  their  tour  was  complete 
(6:30),  and  there  is  confusion  in  regard  to  their  course 
with  Jesus  until  they  came  to  Gennesaret  (6:53)  ;  there 

1  First  Apology,  66. 


12  THE   SOURCES 

is  no  trace  of  his  movements  in  Perea  after  he  had  set  out 
on  the  journey  to  Jerusalem  (10:1),  and  in  the  narrative 
of  the  last  week  the  statement  that  Jesus  went  forth  out 
of  the  city  every  evening  is  by  itself  vague,  leaving  us  in 
doubt  whither  he  went  (11:19).  But  notwithstanding 
all  these  deficiencies  and  obscurities  in  Mark's  narrative, 
it  enables  us  to  follow  the  career  of  Jesus  in  its  main 
features.  (  From  the  Jordan  and  the  wilderness  he  re- 
turned to  Galilee  and  began  his  public  ministry  in  and 
near  Capernaum  (1:14,  16,  21)  ;  from  there  he  made  a 
tour  of  Galilee  (1 139),  returning  at  length  to  Capernaum 
(2:1)  ;  on  a  mountain  in  the  vicinity  he  appointed  the 
Twelve  (3:13,  20),  and  from  Capernaum  after  a  time 
went  to  the  east  side  of  the  lake  (5  :i),  returned  again  to 
Capernaum  (5:21,  35),  and  from  there  went  to  his  own 
country  (6:1).  After  the  mission  of  the  Twelve  and  the 
withdrawal  with  them,  on  their  return,  to  a  desert-place 
which  they  reached  by  boat,  we  are  on  solid  ground  again 
at  Gennesaret  (6:53).  From  there  Jesus  went  with  his 
chosen  band  to  the  region  of  Tyre  and  Sidon  (7:24), 
thence  by  way  of  the  Decapolis  he  came  to  the  eastern 
shore  of  the  lake  of  Galilee  (7:31),  and  from  there  by 
way  of  Bethsaida  (8:22)  to  the  villages  of  Caesarea 
Philippi  (8:27).  From  this  place  again  his  course  is 
clearly  sketched — through  Galilee  (9:30)  to  Capernaum 
(9:33),  then  to  Perea  through  the  borders  of  Judea 
(10:1),  and  finally,  by  way  of  Jericho  (1046)  to  Jeru- 
salem (11  :i),  where  his  movements  through  the  last 
eventful  week  are  in  general  carefully  indicated. 

We  pass  on  to  note  the  second  fundamental  character- 
istic of  Mark's  narrative — its  preservation  of  the  se- 
quences of  an  orderly  development.  Thus  the  opposition 
to  Jesus  which  arose  in  Capernaum  on  the  occasion  of  the 
forgiveness  of  a  man's  sins  (2:5-7),  which  was  strength- 
ened by  Jesus'  disregard  of  traditional  statutes  (2:16,  24; 
3:2,  6),  led  at  last  to  his  withdrawal  to  heathen  territory 
(7:24).  Equally  plain  in  Mark's  narrative  is  the  crucial 
significance  of  what  transpired  in  the  region  of  Caesarea 
Philippi  (8:27-30).  Prior  to  that  time  the  attitude  of 
Jesus  toward  Messiahship  was  one  of  extreme  caution 


THE  SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS 


13 


and  reserve.  There  was  indeed  the  revelation  at  the 
Jordan,  but  that  was  to  Jesus  himself  and  not  to  others 
(1  :n).  The  voice  of  the  demoniac  who  acknowledged 
him  as  the  "Holy  One  of  God"  was  sternly  silenced 
(1  .-24).  Jesus  left  Capernaum,  apparently  because  of  the 
effect  of  his  cures  (1:35),  and  when,  subsequently,  he 
wrought  any  cure  he  sought  to  avoid  excitement,  which 
might  easily  lead  to  an  attempt  to  force  him  into  the 
popular  Messianic  role  (1:44;  5:43;  7:36;  8:26).  He 
presented  himself  to  his  disciples  as  a  preacher  (1:38), 
one  who  had  authority  to  forgive  sin  (2:10)  as  well  as 
•  power  to  cast  out  demons,  but  he  made  no  Messianic 

claim. 
I      At  Caesarea  Philippi,  however,  he  accepted  the  con-    l 
I  fession  of  Messiahship  in  the  circle  of  his  disciples,  though 
J  even  then  enjoining  upon  them  that  they  should  tell  no 
man  (8 130),  and  it  was  probably  not  earlier  than  this  that 
he  used  the  title  "$on  of  Man."     From  this  time  to  the 
day  of  Jesus'  trial  there  is  still  in  Mark's  narrative  the 
same  reserve  of  Jesus  in  public  regarding  his  Messiah- 
ship,  though  his  intercourse  with  his  disciples  is  in  the 
light  of  the  event  at  Caesarea  Philippi  (e.g.  8:31;  9:31- 
32;  10:33). 

But  although  the  Gospel  of  Mark  thus   enables  the 
reader  to  follow  the  career  of  Jesus  to  some  extent  both  in 
its  outward  and  its  inward  development,  it  is  probable 
that  the  author's  real  aim  was  religious  rather  than  his- 
torical.    The  biographical  motive  was  subordinate  to  the 
evangelistic.     This  is  suggested  already  by  the  tradition 
that  Mark's  impulse  to  write  came  from  Peter's  preach- 
ing, and  that  this  preaching  was  a  source  of  his  Gospel. 
For  while  Peter  in  his  preaching  may  have  told  the  story 
of  Jesus'  career,  his  purpose  in  so  doing  was  not  to  teach 
history  but  to  win  converts.     He  selected  and  marshalled 
his  facts  with  this  end  in  view.     Had  Mark's  aim  been 
primarily  historical,  had  he  set  out  to  write  the  life  of 
Jesus,  he  would  hardly  have  ignored  its  first  thirty  yearst 
nor  would  he  have  allowed  himself  to  dwell  so  long  on  the 
details  of  the  work  of  Jesus  as  a  healer  and  to  pass  so 
lightly  over  the  details  of  his  teaching  ministry. 


14  Tin:  soukciuS 

6.     The  Sources  of  Mark's  Gospel. 

According  to  Papias1  the  preaching  of  Peter  so  cms  to 
have  been  the  exclusive,  or  at  least  the  chief,  source  from 
which  Mark  drew.  This  view,  however,  dues  not  appear 
to  be  supjxirtcd  by  the  analysis  «  f  the  writing  itself.  I'or 
though  it  contains  a  large  clement  that  may  well  have  been 
derived  from  th<>-c  addresses  of  Peter  which  Mark  had 
heard,  it  contains  other  material  that  does  not  point 
toward  Peter  a-  its  source.  To  this  analysis  then  it  is 
needful  that    some  thought   be  given. 

Sir  J.  C.  Hawkins,  who  has  worked  out  the  linguistic 
features  of  each  of  the  Synoptic  <>  »spels  with  minute 
care,  fm<\>  that  the  fifty  verse*  which  are  peculiar  to 
Mark,  though  the\  c« ui^titute  only  about  one-thirteenth 
of  the  entire  <  iosjiel,  contain  about  occur- 

rences of  characteristic^  words:  ur  phrases.''1  Tin*  fact  may 
suggest  that  the  author  felt  him-elf  Uumd  more  closely  by 
some  of  his  material  than  by  other  parts,  though,  taken 
by  itself,  it  cannot  be  given  any  great  weight. 

Other  and  more  conclusive  evidence  thai  Mark  rested 
in  part   on  documents  and  gcthcr  on  the  preach- 

ing of   Peter  is  furnished  by  the  i  facts.      In  the 

first  place,  in  his  reference  to  parable-.,  he  seems  t  >  indi- 
cate that  more  were  known  to  him  than  he  records,  and 
known  as  having  been  sj*>ken  on  a  particular  occasion 
(4:2,  io,  33,  35).  This  i>  most  easily  understood  if  lie 
was  acquainted  with  a  c  'Iccii  r,  i.f  parables  which  indi- 
cated  the  occasions  on  which  Jesus  spoke  them,  or.  if 
not  a  collect  ion  i>i  parables,  yet  with  some  document 
that  contained  groups  <*i  parables.  Again — and  this  point 
is  still  more  iin|>>rtant — in  the  account  of  the  feeding  oi 
five  thousand4  all  the  evangelists  use  the  same  (  Ircek  word 
for  basket  (  ko^u-os  ) .  and  in  the  account  of  the  feeding 
^i  four"'  thousand  the  two  evangelists  who  have  this  story 
(Matt,  and    Mark)    use  the  same  Greek   word    (o-^i-piV), 

1  Kuvhius  TTist  -..   *.   ,o.   15. 

1    I]      .     j5      .,      ......  .       .  .  ......  ,  ,  ;    s.i(  1 

Matthew    or   Luke,  or   which 
in    Mat  k  ofm     •  Luke    together. 

♦  Mk.    (1    u    ;  ; :    Mt.     •  :    :;.-;:    Ik.    0:10-17. 
B  Mk.    8:1-10;     Mt. 


THE   SYNOPTIC   GOSPELS  1 5 

but  not  that  which  is  employed  in  the  preceding  narrative. 
Now  the  singular  circumstance  is  that  in  the  subsequent 
words  of  Jesus  about  dangerous  "leaven" — words  occa- 
sioned by  the  disciples'  embarrassment  because  they  had 
so  little  bread  with  them — the  two  Greek  words  are  used, 
each  one  as  in  the  original  account.  This  schematic 
adherence  to  the  particular  terms  of  the  respective  narra- 
tives hardly  admits  of  explanation  except  on  the  suppo- 
sition that  Mark  had  at  this  point  written  documents  (at 
least  two)  before  him,  and  documents  which  he  regarded 
with  great  respect. 

When  now  we  ask  what  particular  parts  of  Mark's 
narrative  may  have  been  drawn  from  Peter's  preaching, 
we  must  admit  that  we  can  hardly  advance  beyond  a 
moderate  probability.  To  Peter  may  most  naturally  be 
traced  the  account  of  scenes  that  are  located  in  his  home 
in  Capernaum,1  and  certain  incidents  personal  to  him.2 
It  seems  reasonable  also  to  regard  him  as  the  source  of 
such  passages  as  clearly  point  to  an  eye-witness,3  for 
Mark,  according  to  tradition,  had  not  heard  the  Lord.^ 

The  question  of  Mark's  relation  to  the  Logia  is  one  on 
which  it  is  difficult  to  reach  a  decided  conclusion.  The 
few  instances  in  which  he  gives  words  of  Jesus  that  are 
found  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount5  suggest  that  he  may 
have  drawn  them  from  oral  tradition,  whence  also  he  not 
improbably  drew  an  appreciable  element  of  his  total 
material.  If  the  evangelist  had  been  acquainted  with  the 
Logia  document,  it  would  be  strange  indeed  that  he  so 
completely  ignored  it. 

/.    Mattheu/s  Use  of  Mark's  Gospel  as  a  Source. 

On  reading  and  comparing  Mark's  Gospel  and  Mat- 
thew's we  notice,  in  the  first  place,  that  while  Matthew 
has  a  large  amount  of  matter  not  found  in  Mark,  Mark 

1 1:29,  2:1. 

'8:29,  10:28,  11:21,  16:7. 

•For  example,  2:1-12.  . 

*  The  tradition  is  not  invalidated  even  if  the  young  man  of  14:51-52  was 
Mark,  for  this  momentary  appearance  does  not  imply  discipleship  or  any 
special   acquaintance   with   Jesus.  

•Mk.  4:24=Mt.  7:2;  Mk.  9:so=Mt.  5  =  13.  Lk-  I4:34"35;  Mk.  4:2i-Mt. 
5:14-16;  Mk.  io:ii=Mt.  5:32,  19:9;  Lk.  16:18a. 


l6  THE  SOURCES 

has  very  little  that  is  not  found  in  Matthew.  He  has 
eight1  short  sections,  aggregating  thirty-six  verses,  or 
somewhat  less  than  six  per  cent  of  the  entire  Gospel,  and 
nine2  very  short  passages,  usually  a  single  verse  each, 
which  either  give  an  independent  item  not  found  in  Mat- 
thew or  certain  notable  details  of  some  incident  that  is 
common  to  both  narratives.  With  these  slight  exceptions 
the  whole  of  Mark's  Gospel  is  contained  in  Matthew. 
Further,  Mark's  order  of  narration  is,  in  the  main,  fol- 
lowed in  the  first  Gospel.  Of  some  sixty-nine  sections 
into  which  the  common  material  of  Matthew  and  Mark 
may  be  divided  nearly  ninety  per  cent  follow  in  the  same 
order  in  the  narrative  of  Matthew  as  in  that  of  Mark. 
There  are  in  Matthew  only  four  notable  departures  from 
Mark's  order.  Matthew  puts  a  tour  of  Galilee  (4:23-25) 
before  the  day  of  great  works  in  Capernaum  (8:14-17), 
which  in  Mark  follows  that  day  (1 :29~39).  The  call  of 
the  Twelve  is  put  by  Matthew  before  the  controversy 
regarding  the  Sabbath  (10:2-4;  12:1-8,  9-14)  instead  of 
after  it,  as  in  Mark.  The  group  of  three  events  (or 
four)3 — storm  on  the  lake,  cure  of  the  Gerasene  and  cure 
of  the  daughter  of  Jairus,  this  latter  incident  enclosing 
the  story  of  the  woman  who  touched  the  garment  of  Jesus 
— are  given  individually  in  Mark's  order,  but  the  entire 
group  is  placed  in  a  different  setting.  And  finally,  the 
mission  of  the  Twelve  (10:5-16)  is  put  soon  after  their 
call  (10:1),  while  Mark  inserts  between  these  events  a 
certain  teaching  in  parables,  a  visit  to  the  region  of 
Gerasa,  the  return  to  Capernaum  and  the  rejection  in 
Nazareth  (3:13-6:7). 

Matthew's  agreement  with  the  order  of  narration  in 
Mark  appears  the  more  noteworthy  when  it  is  considered 
that  he  has  inserted  a  large  amount  of  independent  ma- 
terial into  the  framework  of  Mark's  Gospel.  For  had  he 
not  highly  regarded  the  Marcan  order  of  events  in  the 
life  of  Jesus,  he  might  easily  have  allowed  the  introduc- 
tion of  new  material  to  obscure  it. 

But  these   facts   touching  the  relation  of   Matthew's 

1 1:21-28,  35-38,  3:20-21,  4:26-29,  7:32-37.  8:22-26,  9:38-40,  12:41-44. 

*s:s;  6:5,  19,  55-56;  9:15-16,  21-24,  49-50;  n:xi,  16;  12:3234a;  15:44^ 

»8:i8,  23-27,  28-34;  9:18-26. 


THE  SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS  iy 

Gospel  to  that  of  Mark,  which  have  just  been  presented 
are  not  in  themselves  proof  that  Mark's  Gospel  was  a 
source  of  Matthew's  work.  They  might  be  explained 
though  the  order  of  dependence  were  inverted.  But 
when  we  take  account  not  merely  of  the  fact  that  Mat- 
thew's Gospel  contains  almost  all  the  material  of  Mark 
and  in  Mark's  order,  but  have  regard  also  to  certain 
modifications  of  the  material  in  Matthew,  then  the  ques- 
tion of  the  priority  of  Mark's  Gospel  is  seen  to  be  closed, 
and  doubt  on  the  order  of  the  two  writings  is  excluded. 

First  of  all,  the  Greek  of  Matthew  is  better  than  that  of 
Mark.  Thus  for  a  number  of  rare  and  questionable 
terms  used  by  Mark,  we  have  in  Matthew  terms  that  are 
unobjectionable.1  Instead  of  the  constant  and  monot- 
onous repetition  of  the  conjunction  and,  the  parallel  nar- 
rative of  Matthew  offers  a  good  degree  of  variety.2  And 
again,  where  Mark's  narrative  has  redundant  expressions, 
as  is  frequently  the  case,  Matthew  removes  the  redund- 
ancy.8 

This  better  Greek  of  Matthew's  narrative  is  explicable 
as  a  refinement  on  that  of  Mark,  but  we  could  not  assume 
that  Mark,  having  this  better  Greek  before  him,  would 
have  cast  it  aside  for  something  inferior.  For  though  his 
Greek  style  is  often  criticizable — a  fact  not  at  all  to  be 
wondered  at  in  view  of  his  Jewish  nationality  and  his  tra- 
ditional residence  in  Jerusalem — it  would  not  be  allow- 
able to  suppose  that  he  was  an  uneducated  man,  or  one 

•For  Kpdfiarrot  (e.g.,  2:4),  condemned  by  Phrynicus  (see  Rutherford,  New 
Phrynicui,  pp.  137-8).  Matthew  has  *Atwj  (9:2);  for  eirtparrrei.  (2:21),  not  elsewhere 
in  the  N.  T..  Matthew  has  «iri0oAA«  (9:16);  for  Bvy&rpiov,  only  in  Mk.  5:23,  7:2s  in 
the  N.  T..  Matthew  has0vyar>)p  (9:18);  for  ecrxirox;  e^et  (condemned  by  Phryni- 
cus, see  Rutherford,  p.  481),  not  used  elsewhere  in  the  N.  T..  Matthew  has 
irtktvrrf<r*u  (9:18),  obviouily  not  an  equivalent;  for  <rt?<r<n)p.or  (14:44),  unknown 
elsewhere  in  Greek.  Matthew  has  <nn"ov (26:48),  and  for  rrpoavkioy  (14:68),  found 
only  in  Mark.  Matthew  has  ™k*v  (26:71).  The  term  tK^akcaxrav (12:4).  unknown 
elsewhere  in  Greek,  is  avoided  by  Matthew. 

2  Thus  Matthew  in  4:1  replaces  the  xai  of  Mark  with  to't«,  in  4:18  with 
««,  in  0:10  with  a  participial  construction.  Where  Mark  uses  »c<u  eighty-six 
times  in  beginning  sections  of  his  narrative,  Matthew  has  it  only  thirty-five 
times. 

•Tfca  following  passages  will  sufficiently  illustrate  this  feature.  Mk.  1:32 
has  "And  at  even,  when  the  sun  did  set;*'  ML  8:16  omits  the  second  clause. 
Mk.  2:20  reads:  "And  then  will  they  fast  in  that  day,'  but  ML  9:15  drops 
the  tautological  words  "in  that  day."  Mk.  2:25  has  "Did  ^  nevei-  i-ead 
what  Davicf  did,  when  he  had  need  and  was  hungry,"  but  in  ML  12:3  the 
last  clause  is  dropped. 
2 


1 8  THE   SOURCES 

who  would  not  have  sought  the  most  suitable  language  in 
which  to  set  forth  his  story. 

But,  in  the  second  place,  not  only  is  the  Greek  of 
Matthew  better  than  that  of  Mark,  but  his  modification  of 
the  thought  of  Mark's  Gospel  also  leads  irresistibly  to 
the  conclusion  that  he  wrote  at  a  later  time.  Consider 
first  a  series  of  passages  which  concern  Jesus.  Mark 
says  that  in  the  evening  of  the  notable  day  when  the 
ministry  in  Capernaum  was  begun  Jesus  healed  many 
who  were  sick  with  divers  diseases  (1:34),  a  statement 
that  allows  the  reader  to  think  that  there  were  some  sick 
people  present  whom  he  did  not  heal ;  but  Matthew  tells 
us  that  on  this  same  occasion  Jesus  healed  all  who  were 
sick  (8:16).  Again,  when  Jesus  visited  iCazareth  dur- 
ing his  ministry,  Mark  records  that  he  could  do  no  mighty 
work  there,  save  that  he  laid  his  hands  on  a  few  sick  folk 
and  healed  them  (6:5).  It  is  clear  that  he  thought  of  the 
power  of  Jesus  in  this  case  as  limited.  Only  a  few  sick 
folk  and  they  not  extreme  cases  (  dppuwrrois)  were  cured. 
The  unbelief  of  the  people  of  Nazareth  prevented  further 
manifestations  of  the  gracious  might  of  Jesus.  But  Mat- 
thew makes  a  significant  change.  He  does  not  say  that 
Jesus  could  do  no  mighty  work,  but  simply,  "he  did  not" 
(13:58).  The  suggestion  of  inability  to  heal  is  thus  re- 
moved. Another  illustration  is  furnished  by  the  story  of 
the  withered  fig-tree.  According  to  Mark  (11:12,  20) 
the  disciples  did  not  notice  that  the  fig-tree  was  withered 
until  at  least  the  day  after  Jesus  had  sought  fruit  on  it; 
but  Matthew  represents  that  the  withering  took  place 
immediately,  to  the  great  amazement  of  the  disciples 
(21  :ic>-2o).  Obviously  this  report  sets  the  act  of  Jesus 
in  a  stronger  light — renders  the  miracle  more  impressive. 
A  fourth  parallel  instance  is  found  on  comparing  Mark 
6 :3  with  Matthew  13  :55«  According  to  Mark,  the  Nazar- 
enes  said  of  Jesus:  "Is  not  this  the  carpenter?"  but  in 
Matthew  their  query  runs:  "Is  not  this  the  son  of  the 
carpenter?"  Thus  the  expression  is  softened  and  made 
less  objectionable  for  those  who  separated  Jesus  from 
other  men  as  widely  as  possible. 

There  is  another  class  of  passages  in  Matthew's  Gospel 


THE  SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS 


19 


which  modify  Mark  by  suggestive  omissions.  Thus  he 
omits  the  cure  of  the  man  in  Decapolis  who  was  deaf  and 
had  an  impediment  in  his  speech  (7:32-35)  and  the  cure 
of  the  blind  man  in  Bethsaida  (8:22-26),  the  two  in- 
stances of  healing  which  have  the  least  glamour  of  the 
supernatural  about  them.  In  both  cases  Jesus  made  use 
of  spittle  and  in  one  case  the  cure  was  gradual.  Again, 
Mark  says  that  Jesus  on  a  certain  occasion  in  the  syna- 
gogue at  Capernaum  looked  round  on  the  people  with 
anger  (3:5),  and  that  at  another  time  he  was  moved 
with  indignation  (10:14);  Matthew  omits  both  expres- 
sions. Mark  also  tells  us  that  the  relatives  of  Jesus 
thought  he  was  beside  himself  (3:21)  ;  this  too  Matthew 
omits.  In  the  story  of  Jesus  on  the  lake  Mark  says 
(6:48)  that  "he  would  have  passed  by  them;"  Matthew 
omits  this.  He  also  makes  a  significant  omission  in  the 
account  of  the  sending  for  an  ass  on  which  Jesus  might 
ride  into  the  city,  for  he  does  not  say,  with  Mark  (11 13), 
that  the  Lord  would  send  the  ass  back  to  the  owner — an 
omission  which  heightens  the  authority  with  which  Jesus 
proceeds  in  the  matter.  Finally,  in  the  incident  of  the 
withered  tree,  Mark's  word  of  apology  for  the  tree's 
barrenness,  namely,  that  it  was  not  "the  season  of  figs," 
is  not  found  in  Matthew.  Its  omission  in  this  writing 
may  have  been  dictated  by  the  desire  to  defend  the  act 
of  Jesus  from  the  charge  of  unreasonableness. 

Now  these  eight  omissions  are  in  line  with  the  positive 
modifications  of  Mark's  thought  which  Matthew  makes 
and  are  therefore  naturally  to  be  ascribed  to  the  same 
motive.  Both  classes  of  passages  are  intelligible  if  Mat- 
thew used  Mark  as  a  source,  but  not  if  that  relation  be 
inverted.  In  keeping  with  the  fact  that  Jesus  was  more 
and  more  exalted  as  time  passed  and  as  the  evidences  of 
his  gracious  power  accumulated,  we  must  regard  Mat- 
thew's narrative  as  secondary  and  Mark's  as  primary, 
since  Matthew  removes  these  questionable  features  of 
Mark's  picture  of  Jesus. 

We  conclude  then-  that  our  first  Gospel  used  Mark  as 
one  of  its  sources.  Further,  it  would  not  be  too  much  to 
say  that  the  writer  regarded  this  earlier  document  as  his 


20  THE   SOURCES 

standard  authority.  He  incorporates  nearly  all  of  it  in 
his  own  story  and  he  rarely  departs  from  its  order  of  nar- 
ration. The  sole  important  feature  of  it  which  seemed  to 
him  inadequate  was  its  view  of  Jesus,  except,  of  course, 
the  fact  that  it  seemed  to  him  to  leave  out  much  valuable 
material. 

8.    Mat  then/ s  Use  of  the  Logia  as  a  Source. 

Outwardly,  the  most  notable  point  in  Matthew's  use  of 
the  Logia  is  his  grouping  of  the  material.  Thus  he  brings 
together  in  one  address  delivered  on  a  "mountain"  (5:1) 
words  which  in  Luke  are  represented  as  spoken  on  a  half 
dozen  separate  occasions.  The  address  itself  bears  marks 
of  its  composite  character,  for  it  contains  some  material 
that  does  not  suit  the  time  and  the  occasion  on  which  it  is 
said  to  have  been  spoken.  Thus,  for  example,  the  severe 
condemnation  of  scribes  and  Pharisees  (5  .20;  6:2,  5,  16) 
does  not  belong  at  the  beginning  of  the  Galilean  ministry, 
nor  can  we  suppose  that  the  words  7:21,  22  were  spoken 
long  before  Jesus  had  let  even  his  chosen  disciples  know 
that  he  regarded  himself  as  the  Messiah — a  revelation 
that  dates  from  the  days  at  Caesarea  Philippi  (16:13). 
Again,  this  grouping  of  material  from  the  Logia  is  obvious 
in  the  address  to  the  apostles,  which  was  given  on  the 
occasion  of  their  going  out  in  Galilee  during  the  life-time 
of  Jesus  (10),  for  this  address  contains  passages  which 
clearly  belong  to  a  much  later  time  (e.g.,  16:16-18,  23, 
34).  They  are  brought  together  here  simply  because  they 
come  under  the  general  head  of  instructions  to  the  dis- 
ciples in  view  of  their  work  in  the  world. 

The  strong  impression  of  topical  grouping  which  is 
made  by  these  addresses  in  Matthew  is  abundantly  con- 
firmed by  a  comparison  of  Matthew  with  the  Lucan  paral- 
lels. This  point,  however,  needs  no  elaborate  illustration. 
Take  simply  the  case  of  the  Lord's  Prayer.  According 
to  Matthew,  that  Prayer  was  given  to  the  disciples  by 
Jesus  on  his  own  initiative,  as  a  part  of  the  body  of  funda- 
mental teaching  which  he  communicated  to  them  on  the 
mountain,  but  according  to  Luke  (11  :i-4),  it  was  given 
in  response  to  a  request  of  the  disciples,  and  given  long 


THE   SYNOPTIC   GOSPELS  21 

after  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  This  Lucan  representa- 
tion is  intrinsically  probable  as  far  as  the  initiative  is  con- 
cerned For  Jesus  never  established  new  rites  and  cere- 
monies for  his  followers,  unless  indeed  we  suppose  an 
exception  in  this  single  case.  It  was  wholly  foreign  to 
his  method  and  purpose.  He  who  left  his  disciples  mem- 
bers of  the  Jewish  Church,  who  did  not  suggest  that  they 
should  establish  an  organization  by  themselves,  would  not 
have  been  likely  to  prescribe,  of  his  own  accord,  a  form 
of  prayer.  He  was  concerned  to  create  a  new  life  in  the 
heart,  not  to  reform  the  Jewish  ritual.  Hence  the  account 
of  Luke  in  reference  to  the  occasion  of  the  Lord's  Prayer 
is  to  be  preferred  to  that  in  Matthew.  It  was  not  a  part 
of  the  fundamental  teaching  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount, 
but  was  put  there  by  the  author  of  the  first  Gospel  in 
pursuance  of  his  plan  to  give  a  topical  arrangement  of  his 
material. 

This  view  that  the  first  evangelist  made  an  independent 
grouping  of  the  material  which  he  had  before  him  in  the 
Logia  is  further  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  he  appears  to 
represent  Jesus  as  having  given  to  his  disciples  five  series 
of  words  or  teachings,1  which,  in  the  light  of  the  Gospel 
narrative,  is  plainly  an  arbitrary  division.  The  occasions 
on  which  Jesus  spoke  in  Galilee,  in  Perea  and  in  Jerusalem 
were  numerous,  one  might  safely  say  nearer  five  hundred 
than  five.  But  one  whose  scheme  of  presenting  the  teach- 
ing of  Jesus  led  him  to  make  this  general  five-fold 
division2  would  obviously  have  proceeded  with  perfect 
freedom  in  the  grouping  of  individual  sayings  of  Jesus. 

A  second  point  to  be  noticed  in  Matthew's  use  of  the 
Logia  is  a  certain  freedom  in  dealing  with  the  thought. 
This  is  plainly  in  line  with  the  preceding  characteristic, 
for  the  grouping  of  the  Lord's  words,  in  so  far  as  it 
obscures  the  occasion  on  .which  different  words  were 
spoken,  may  not  only  render  their  interpretation  difficult, 
but  may  also  easily  modify  their  original  sense. 

»See  the  formula  "when  Jesus  had  finished  these  words,"  with  slight 
modifications,  in  7:28;    ti:i;   13=53;   *9\}\  26:.1-  ,.  .    TT      ,. 

'Had  this  division  belonged  to  the  Logia  itself,  which  Hawkins  suggests 
as  possible,  it  would  seem  a  little  strange  that  no  clear  trace  of :  1 1  i  j  to  be 
found  in  Luke.  The  single  use  of  an  expression  (7:1)  parallel  to  Matthew  s 
formula  is  hardly  such  a  trace. 


22  THE   SOURCES 

This  freedom  of  the  first  evangelist  in  handling  the 
thought  of  the  Logia  is  a  matter  of  great  importance,  and 
though  it  is  not  necessary  at  present  to  study  every  point 
which  illustrates  this  freedom,  the  truth  of  the  assertion 
ought  to  be  put  beyond  question.  For  that  purpose  we 
shall  consider  a  number  of  passages  which  set  the  com- 
piler's freedom  in  a  clear  and  strong  light. 

According  to  Luke,  Jesus  pronounced  a  blessing  on  the 
"poor"  (6:20)  ;  according  to  Matthew,  on  the  poor  "in 
spirit"  (5  13)  ;  according  to  Luke,  he  blessed  the  "hungry" 
(6:21);  according  to  Matthew,  those  who  are  hungry 
"after  righteousness"  (5:6).  The  Lucan  saying  starts 
from  the  physical1  state,  if  it  is  not  concerned  with  that 
altogether;  the  Matthaean  begins  and  ends  with  the 
spiritual.  The  version  in  Luke  is  more  difficult  than  that 
in  Matthew.  It  is  easy  to  believe  that  the  word  "poor" 
may  have  been  interpreted  to  mean  poor  in  spirit,  but  not 
that  a  writer  who  had  the  words  "poor  in  spirit"  changed 
them  to  poor.  If  Jesus  spoke  a  blessing  on  the  poor,  leav- 
ing that  word  undefined,  we  can  see  that  it  may  have  been 
regarded  as  putting  a  premium  on  poverty,  and  that  Chris- 
tian teachers,  rightly  feeling  that  this  was  not  consistent 
with  the  life  and  general  teaching  of  Jesus,  defined  the 
term  as  is  done  in  Matthew. 

As  a  second  instance  of  the  freedom  under  discussion, 
take  the  Lord's  Prayer.  Matthew's  version  is  half  as  long 
again  as  Luke's,  Luke  having  thirty-eight  words  (Greek) 
and  Matthew  fifty-seven.  Matthew  has  seven  petitions 
and  Luke  only  five.  But  the  two  which  are  peculiar  to 
Matthew  are  only  an  unessential  expansion  of  the  thought 
contained  in  Luke.  But  since  the  style  of  Jesus  is  known 
to  us  as  concise  and  full  of  vigor,  it  is  more  probable  that 
the  amplifying  words  of  Matthew  are  a  late  modification 
than  that  they  are  original. 

A  third  illuminating  instance  is  the  sign  of  Jonah.  Ac- 
cording to  Luke,  this  consisted  in  Jonah's  appearing  as  a 
prophet  in  Nineveh  (11 130),  and  the  sign  of  the  Son  of 
Man  to  his  generation  was  to  be  of  the  same  sort.  No 
"sign"  such  as  men  were  demanding — no  miracle — should 

1  This  is  made  all  the  plainer  by  the  contrast  in  verse  24. 


THE   SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS  23 

be  given,  but  only  the  sign  of  Jonah,  that  is,  the  simple 
prosaic  fact  of  preaching.  But  Matthew's  understanding 
of  the  sign  is  wholly  different  from  this.  To  him  the  sign 
consisted  in  Jonah's  experience  with  the  sea-monster,  and 
the  parallel  in  the  case  of  the  Son  of  Man  was  to  be  his 
burial  in  the  earth  for  three  days  and  three  nights  (12  40) . 
This  view,  however,  is  entirely  unsuited  to  the  occasion 
on  which  Jesus  spoke  of  the  sign  of  Jonah.  He  had  posi- 
tively refused  to  give  a  sign  such  as  was  demanded  by 
scribes  and  Pharisees  (12:39),  Dut  tn^s  interpretation 
represents  him  as  immediately  setting  aside  his  own  ex- 
plicit refusal  and  as  granting  a  supernatural  sign  after  all. 
Further,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
was  not  a  sign  to  that  unbelieving  generation.  The  risen 
Lord,  according  to  the  Gospels,  appeared  only  to  his  own 
disciples.  We  must  then  regard  Matthew's  version  of 
this  saying  of  Jesus  as  a  departure  from  the  Logia,  if  we 
ascribe  Lk.  1 1 130  to  that  document.  That  version  exhibits 
a  marked  characteristic  of  the  author  of  the  first  Gospel, 
for  he  delighted  in  the  discovery  of  hidden  agreement 
between  details  in  the  life  of  Jesus  and  passages  of  the 
Old  Testament. 

Another  instance  of  the  relatively  great  freedom  with 
which  Matthew  handled  the  thought  of  the  Logia  is  fur- 
nished by  the  passage  in  regard  to  the  pardon  of  an 
offending  brother.  Jesus  affirmed,  according  to  Luke 
( 17 13-4),  that  one  should  forgive  a  penitent  brother  with- 
out limit,  even  seven  times  in  a  single  day.  But  in  Mat- 
thew we  have  the  outline  of  a  course  of  procedure  that 
appears  to  be  a  clear  reflection  of  early  ecclesiastical  prac- 
tice (18:15-17).  For  Jesus  is  represented  as  referring 
the  matter  to  the  Church,  though  he  nowhere  in  the 
synoptic  Gospels  contemplates  the  departure  of  his  fol- 
lowers from  the  Jewish  religious  fellowship  or  intimates 
that  they  are  to  establish  a  new  organization.  And 
further,  he  is  not  only  represented  as  directing  his  dis- 
ciples to  refer  the  matter  to  the  Church,  but  also  as  mak- 
ing the  Church's  decision  final.  Continued  impenitence 
on  a  brother's  part  justifies  the  treatment  of  him  as  a 
heathen  and  a  publican.     This  outcome  surely  does  not 


24  THE   SOURCES 

breathe  the  spirit  of  Jesus,  but  rather  that  of  the  early 
Church  in  its  struggle  with  unworthy  members.1 

A  final  illustration  of  Matthew's  freedom  is  afforded 
by  the  story  of  the  Wedding  Feast  or  Great  Supper.2  The 
freedom  of  the  first  evangelist  is  seen  especially  in  two 
additions.  When  the  invitation  to  the  feast  is  persistently 
declined,  the  host  is  angry.  Luke  says  no  more  than  this. 
But  in  Matthew  the  King  who  offers  the  feast  sends  out 
his  armies  and  burns  the  city  in  which  the  people  live 
whom  he  has  invited.  But  this  again  does  not  show  the 
spirit  of  Jesus  who  instead  of  destroying  those  who  did 
not  accept  his  invitation  allowed  them  to  destroy  him. 
Thus  we  find  here  a  disturbing  element,  which  appears 
to  have  been  brought  into  the  story  from  subsequent  his- 
tory, for  Jerusalem,  whose  citizens  did  not  welcome  Jesus, 
was  actually  burned  by  the  Romans.  The  second  addi- 
tion to  the  story  is  in  the  spirit  of  the  first  (22:11-13). 
A  king  who  would  burn  a  city  whose  inhabitants  had 
refused  his  invitation  to  a  feast  might  be  expected  to  act 
as  the  king  does  in  verses  11-13.  He  gives  command 
that  the  man  who  has  no  wedding-garment  be  bound 
hand  and  foot  and  be  cast  into  the  outer  darkness.  We 
need  not  stop  to  discuss  this  passage  further  than  to  say 
that  it  seems  to  be  an  addition  inasmuch  as  its  thought  is 
foreign  to  the  manifest  purpose  of  the  parable.  That 
purpose  is  to  teach  that  the  "feast"  which  the  Jews  refuse 
will  be  offered  to  others  less  favored  than  they.  But  the 
thought  of  verses  11 -13  is  obviously  quite  different.  It 
is  not  concerned  with  the  acceptance  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  but  with  some  subjective  preparation  for  member- 
ship therein.  We  need  not  inquire  what  deep  theological 
meaning  the  author  saw  in  the  "wedding-garment."  It  is 
enough  for  the  present  to  recognize  that  his  addition  to 
Luke's  version  takes  us  into  a  different  sphere  of  thought 
and  one  not  in  harmony  with  the  lesson  of  the  parable. 

The  data  which  we  have  now  considered  seem  fully 
to  establish  the  view  that  the  author  of  the  first  Gospel 
exercised  a  large  degree  of  freedom  both  in  the  arrange- 

1  See  e.g.,  I  Cor.  5:5;  I  Tim.  1:20;  III  Jn.  9-10. 
*  Mt.  32:1-14;  Lk.  14:15-24. 


THE   SYNOPTIC   GOSPELS 


25 


ment  and  in  the  treatment  of  the  material  found  in  the 
Logxa.  That  document  was  for  him  a  standard  authority, 
as  was  the  Gospel  according  to  Mark,  but  nevertheless 
he  did  not  incorporate  it  in  his  narrative  unchanged,  even 
as  he  did  not  that  earlier  Gospel.  His  interest  in  proph- 
ecy, which  we  find  illustrated  in  other  portions  of  his 
story  besides  that  which  he  had  from  the  Logia,  moulded 
his  use  of  that  material,  as  did  also  the  course  of  early 
Christian  history. 

p.     Matthew's  Peculiar  Material. 

About  one  quarter  of  the  first  Gospel — approximately 
260  verses — is  not  found  elsewhere,  and  so  may  be  re- 
garded as  the  peculiar  property  of  the  author.  Of  this 
large  mass  of  material  only  about  four  per  cent  consists 
of  incidents  in  the  ministry  of  Jesus.1  Nearly  one  quarter 
of  it  concerns  his  childhood  or  consists  of  details  of  his 
death  and  resurrection,  the  remaining  seventy-two  per 
cent  of  Matthew's  peculiar  matter  is  teaching  of  Jesus. 

Of  the  incidents  in  the  ministry  of  Jesus,  which  only 
Matthew  has,  all  but  one  are  supernatural,  and  the  two 
main  incidents  are  distinctly  marked  off  from  the  ordinary 
mighty  works  of  Jesus.  These  are  Peter's  walking  on 
the  water  (14:28-31)  and  his  finding  a  coin  in  the  mouth 
of  a  fish  (17:24-27).  Remarkable  in  character  are  also 
Matthew's  details  in  the  story  of  the  death  and  resurrec- 
tion of  Jesus.  Thus  an  earthquake  followed  the  death  on 
the  cross,  and  opened  certain  tombs  in  the  neighborhood 
of  Jerusalem,  and  from  these  the  bodies  of  saints  were 
raised,  and  entering  into  the  holy  city  they  appeared  unto 
many  (27:51-53).  Again,  the  great  earthquake  which  in 
Matthew  preceded  the  resurrection  seems  to  have  been 
regarded  as  supernatural  in  its  origin,  for  it  resulted  from 
the  descent  of  an  angel  out  of  heaven  (28:2). 

These  incidents  give  to  the  first  Gospel  a  unique  color- 
ing. The  typical  mighty  work  of  Jesus,  according  to  all 
the  synoptists,  is  the  cure  of  disease,  but  these  events 
recorded  by  Matthew  alone— namely,  the  two  in  which 
Jesus  is  active— lie  in  the  realm  of  nature.     It  may  fitly 

1Viz.,   14:28-31;   17:24-27;  21:10-11,   14. 


26  THE   SOURCES 

be  noticed  in  this  connection  that  Matthew's  version  of 
miraculous  incidents  which  are  common  to  all  the  synop- 
tists  reveals  a  tendency  to  emphasize  the  supernatural. 
Thus,  while  Mark  represents  Jesus  as  helping  the  mother 
of  Peter's  wife  to  rise  from  her  bed  (1:31),  Matthew 
says  that  Jesus  touched  her  hand  and  she  arose  (8:15). 
Again,  Mark  says  that  the  little  daughter  of  Jairus  was 
at  the  point  of  death  (5:21),  Matthew  says  that  she  was 
already  dead  (9  :i8).  Mark  tells  us  that  Jesus,  just  prior 
to  the  feeding  of  the  multitude  near  Bethsaida,  taught 
them  many  things  (6:34)  ;  Matthew  says  nothing  of  his 
teaching,  but  writes  that  Jesus  healed  the  sick  (14:14). 

In  view  of  the  supernatural  element  in  Matthew's 
peculiar  material  we  are  doubtless  justified  in  attributing 
to  him  also  these  touches  whereby  the  miraculous  in  the 
triple1  tradition  is  made  more  impressive.  The  writer  is 
thus  brought  before  us  as  one  who  laid  stress  on  the 
miraculous  and  who  made  no  distinction  between  the 
typical  healing  of  the  sick  and  such  prodigies  as  finding  a 
coin  in  the  mouth  of  a  fish  and  walking  on  water. 

But  it  is  in  the  sphere  of  doctrine  that  the  peculiar  mat- 
ter of  the  first  Gospel  departs  most  widely  from  the  com- 
mon teaching  of  all  the  synoptists.  This  departure  is 
obvious,  first,  in  its  doctrine  of  Christ,  and  second,  in  its 
ecclesiology.  We  begin  with  Matthew's  addition  to  the 
older  account  of  the  baptism  of  Jesus  (3:14-15).  The 
hesitation  of  John  .the  Baptist  when  Jesus  stood  before 
him  is  psychologically  conceivable,  though  opinions  may 
differ  as  to  whether  it  is  probable,  but  the  response  of 
Jesus  to  John's  word  is  not  so  easily  accepted.  For  it 
represents  his  submission  to  the  rite  of  baptism  as  having 
only  a  temporary  (apn)  and  superficial  (trpiirov)  signifi- 
cance, whereas  we  are  constrained  by  the  profound  expe- 
rience of  God's  favor,  which  Jesus  had  immediately  after 
his  baptism,  to  believe  that  he  came  to  the  Jordan  with  a 
great  longing  to  dedicate  himself  to  the  kingdom  of  God 
but  with  no  thought  that  he  himself  was  called  to  realize 
that  kingdom.     Further,  the  difficulty  of  accepting  Mt. 

1  This  term,  is  more  convenient  than  accurate.  It  is  the  attestation  of 
tradition  that  is  triple  rather  than  the  tradition  itself. 


THE   SYNOPTIC   GOSPELS  2? 

3  :i5  as  words  of  Jesus  is  heightened  by  the  circumstance 
in  vs.  17  that  what  in  Mark  is  a  message  to  the  soul  of 
Jesus  is  here  a  testimony  to  the  Baptist.  The  writer 
apparently  did  not  think  that  Jesus  needed  a  divine  affir- 
mation of  his  sonship  to  God.  But  when  we  find  that  the 
writer  of  Mt.  3:17  departs  from  the  older  conception  of 
the  heavenly  message  which  we  have  in  Mk.  1:1.1,  and 
that  his  new  conception  has  the  same  obvious  aim  as  the 
incident  in  vs.  14-15,  which  he  alone  gives,  we  cannot 
avoid  the  conclusion  that  the  later  view  of  the  person  of 
Jesus,  which  is  fully  developed  in  John,  has  found  its  way 
into  Matthew's  story  of  the  baptism.1 

We  pass  to  the  interpretation  of  the  parable  of  the 
Tares  (13:37-43)-  There  are  reasons  which  appear 
weighty  why  we  should  regard  this  as  an  early  Christian 
interpretation.  Thus,  in  the  first  place,  it  attaches  a 
symbolic  meaning  to  the  details  of  the  parable — a  fact 
which,  since  it  makes  the  teaching  of  the  passage  vague, 
we  can  hardly  ascribe  to  Jesus  himself.  Again,  this 
interpretation  declares  that  the  field  is  the  world,  but  Jesus 
limited  his  activity  to  the  house  of  Israel.  Even  later  than 
the  time  when  this  passage  was  spoken  he  was  only  con- 
strained to  help  the  Syro-Phoenician  woman  by  her  extra- 
ordinary faith  (Mk.  7:26-29).  Jesus  doubtless  antici- 
pated that  his  ministry  would  bless  other  peoples  than  the 
Jews,  and  toward  the  close  of  his  life  this  thought  found 
plainer  expression ;  but  it  is  quite  clear  that  he  regarded 
Israel  as  the  field  of  his  own  labors.  So  obvious  was  this 
devotion  of  Jesus  that  his  apostles  continued  in  the  same 
field,  and  it  was  only  after  a  special  discipline  that  Peter 
ventured  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  the  Gentile  Cornelius 
(Acts  10).  It  was  in  large  degree  the  work  of  Paul  that 
brought  home  to  the  consciousness  of  the  Church  that  the 
field  is  the  world.  Once  more,  it  is  unfavorable  to  the 
originality  of  this  Matthaean  interpretation  that  it  speaks 
of  the  angels  and  the  kingdom  as  belonging  to  the  Son  of 
Man  (vs.  41).     The  angels  are  never  thus  described  in 

'Hawkins,  Horae  Synopticae,  pp.  4,.  7,  calls  attention  to^ the  fact  that 
this  addition  contains  three  characteristic  Matthaean  words— apn,  StKaioaw^ 
and  wXjfp6ta. 


28  THE   SOURCES 

Mark  or  Luke,  nor,  with  the  partial  exception  of  Lk. 
22:29,  does  cither  of  these  Gospels  ever  speak  of  a  king- 
dom of  the  Son  of  Man.  In  them  the  angels  are  always 
angels  of  God,  when  any  ownership  is  expressed,1  and  the 
kingdom  in  the  full  sense  of  the  term  is  always  the  pos- 
session of  God.  The  usage  then  of  the  first  Gospel2  in 
this  point  is  in  harmony  with  its  story  of  the  baptism  of 
Jesus,  but  is  not  supported  by  Mark  and  Luke.  Finally, 
it  is  not  favorable  to  the  originality  of  Matthew's  inter- 
pretation of  the  Tares  that  it  uses  symbols  of  judgment 
which  Mark  and  Luke  never  use.  Such  are  the  "furnace 
of  fire"  and  "the  weeping  and  the  gnashing  of  teeth." 
This  latter  expression  is  found  six  times8  in  Matthew, 
never  in  Mark  and  but  once  in  Luke  (13:28),  where, 
however,  it  has  a  meaning  quite  different  from  that  which 
it  uniformly  has  in  Matthew.  But  this  symbolism  of  suf- 
fering and  judgment  which  is  not  found  in  the  oldest  Gos- 
pel nor  in  Luke's  version  of  the  Logia  is  akin  to  that  of 
the  apocalyptic  writings  and  the  Psalms  rather  than  to  the 
language  of  Jesus.4  Thus  there  seems  to  be  good  reason 
for  the  conclusion  that  the  interpretation  of  the  parable  of 
the  Tares  is  not  from  Jesus. 

The  next  significant  passage  in  the  peculiar  material  of 
Matthew  is  16:18-19:  "And  I  also  say  unto  thee,  that 
thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  church ; 
and  the  gates  of  Hades  shall  not  prevail  against  it.  I  will 
give  unto  thee  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven:  and 
whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in 
heaven;  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  on  earth  shall 
be  loosed  in  heaven."  Now  as  we  have  seen,  Matthew's 
narrative  rests  on  Mark  as  one  of  its  chief  sources,  and 
tradition  makes  Peter  a  chief  source  of  Mark.  But  if 
Peter  was  a  chief  source  of  Mark,  it  would  be  most 
strange  if  he  had  not  communicated  to  him  this  surpass- 
ingly important  word  of  Jesus.  Yet  had  Mark  known 
this  word,  we  cannot  easily  believe  that  he  would  have 
omitted  it  from  his  narrative  of  the  great  event  at  Caes- 

1  Lk.   1:11;  2:0;   12:8;   15:10. 

2  16:27,  28;   20:21;  24:31. 

'8:12;    13:42-50;   22:13;   24:51;    25:30. 

4  Sec  Dan.  3:6;  Similitudes  of  Enoch  54:6;  Psalms  112:10. 


THE  SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS  20, 

area  Philippi,  especially  as  it  put  high  honor  on  a  man 
to  whom  he  was  deeply  indebted. 

Again,  in  this  word  to  Peter  there  is  a  play  on  the 
name  of  the  apostle:  "Thou  art  Petros  and  upon  this 
petra  I  will  build  my  Church."  But  the  language  of 
Jesus  was  Aramaic,  and  the  Aramaic  does  not  allow  this 
play  on  the  name.  It  is  peculiar  to  the  Greek.  Then 
there  is  the  strange  fact  that  Jesus  is  here  represented  as 
using  the  word  "Church."  No  reason  is  apparent  why 
he  should  not  have  used  the  word  "kingdom,"  which  he 
had  employed  from  the  beginning  of  his  ministry  and 
which  he  continued  to  employ  after  this  day  at  Caesarea 
Philippi.  Why  a  new  term  just  here,  and  one  never 
used  in  either  of  the  other  Gospels  ?  Let  it  be  noted  also 
that  though  Matthew  uses  the  word  "Church"  on  one 
other  occasion  (18:17),  he  uses  it  there  in  a  different 
sense,  and  that  the  two  senses — that  of  a  local  body  and 
that  of  the  Church  universal — are  what  we  find  in  Paul. 
Moreover  it  does  not  accord  with  the  well  established 
usage  of  Jesus  that  he  should  have  said  "I  will  build"  and 
"My"  Church.  He  taught  his  disciples  to  pray  to  the 
Father.  "Thy  kingdom  come ;"  and  although  he  regarded 
himself  as  the  Messiah,  the  Gospel  contains  no  explicit 
and  undoubted  words  of  his  in  regard  to  a  personal  activ- 
ity on  earth  after  his  death.  But  at  the  time  of  the  event 
at  Caesarea  Philippi  Jesus  clearly  regarded  his  death  as 
imminent  (16:21),  and  therefore  the  building  of  the 
Church  here  contemplated  implies  a  posthumous  activity 
on  his  part.  Then  too  the  relative  position  assured  to 
Peter  in  vs.  19  plainly  conflicts  with  the  unquestioned 
words  and  practice  of  Jesus  and  also  with  apostolic  his- 
tory. It  is  impossible  to  see  how  one  who  declared  that 
rank  among  his  disciples  must  depend  on  service  rend- 
ered,1 and  who,  at  a  later  day,  said  it  was  not  in  his  power 
to  grant  the  request  of  James  and  John  that  they  might 
have  the  first  places  in  his  kingdom,2  one  who,  after  the 
day  at  Caesarea  Philippi,  never  intimated  to  Peter  that 

»See   Mk.  9  =35 J   Mt.  20:27;   Lk.  22:26. 
•Sec  Mk.  10:40;  Mt.  20:23- 


30  THE   SOURCES 

he  was  to  have  a  higher  authority  than  the  other  apostles, 
can  have  spoken  the  words  of  Mt.  16:18-19. 

And  these  words  in  Matthew  are  not  only  in  conflict 
with  the  teaching-  and  practice  of  Jesus  but  in  conflict 
also  with  apostolic  history.  For  though  Peter  was  con- 
spicuous in  the  Church  at  Jerusalem,1  neither  the  letters 
of  Paul  nor  the  book  of  Acts  distinguishes  him  officially 
from  the  other  apostles. 

We  conclude  then  that  this  particular  item  in  Matthew's 
peculiar  matter  acquaints  us  not  with  words  and  thoughts 
of  Jesus,  but  rather  with  the  early  Catholic  movement. 

Another  important  passage  that  is  peculiar  to  Matthew 
is  the  dramatic  account  of  the  Judgment  (25:31-46). 
There  are  three  serious  objections  to  the  genuineness  of 
this  passage  as  it  stands.  First,  it  conflicts  with  what  the 
Gospels  elsewhere  represent  as  the  habitual  attitude  of 
Jesus  toward  the  subject  of  future  awards.  That  attitude 
is  one  of  great  reserve.  The  Logia  has  significant  allu- 
sions to  judgment,  but  they  are  brief  and  incidental.2  The 
earliest  Gospel  has  fewer  allusions  to  the  subject  than  has 
the  Logia,  and  these  are  of  the  same  general  character.3 
But  here  in  Matthew  we  have  a  formal  and  complete 
judgment  scene.  Second,  the  terminology  of  this  pas- 
sage in  Matthew  departs  widely  from  the  usage  of  Jesus 
as  elsewhere  shown  in  the  Gospels.  Thus  a  "throne  of 
glory"  is  found  in  the  Gospels  only  here  and  in  Mt.  19 :28 
— a  passage  not  supported  by  the  other  narratives ;  and 
nowhere  else  is  Jesus  represented  as  calling  himself 
"king."  The  cognate  phrase  of  13:41  and  16:28  is  not 
supported  by  the  Logia,  by  Mark  or  Luke.  Then  certain 
terms  are  used  here  of  the  wicked  which  are  limited  either 
to  this  passage  or  to  this  gospel.  Here  only  is  the  word 
"cursed"  ( Karrjpafjicvoi)  ascribed  to  Jesus  when  he  speaks 
of  the  wicked,  and  here  only  occurs  the  expression 
"eternal  punishment"  (vs.  46).  Nowhere  else  except  in 
18:8  (Mk.  9:43)  do  the  Gospels  use  the  term  "eternal 
fire,"  and  there  the  earlier  Gospel  has  "unquenchable." 

1  Sec  Gal.   1:18;  2:9;  I  Cor.  1:12;  3:22;  Acts  1:15;  2:14,  etc. 
*  Sec,   c.j?..   Lk.    13:26,   28;    12:5,  9,   46;    Mt.    10:32-33. 
8  Mk.  8:38;    10:30;   13:26-27. 


THE  SYNOPTIC   GOSPELS  3 1 

Finally,  under  this  head,  this  passage  is  the  only  one  in 
the  Gospels  where  bad  men  are  assigned  to  the  same  fate 
with  the  Devil  and  his  angels.  Third,  it  is  unfavorable 
to  the  genuineness  of  this  passage  that  its  basis  of  judg- 
ment is  not  in  accord  with  other  teaching  of  Jesus.  The 
righteous  are  accepted  because  they  have  ministered  to 
the  bodily  needs  of  the  King's  "brethren,"  and  those  on 
the  left  hand  are  rejected  because  they  have  not  min- 
istered to  the  bodily  needs  of  the  King's  brethren.  The 
righteous  do  not  recognize  that  in  serving  the  hungry  and 
the  thirsty,  they  are  serving  the  King.  Their  motive 
seems  not  to  be  taken  into  account  at  all.  The  King 
regards  what  they  have  done  for  his  brethren  as  done  for 
him,  and  thereon  pronounces  them  blessed.  Now  this 
teaching  departs  in  two  points  from  the  common  thought 
of  Jesus.  In  the  first  place,  the  personal  relation  to  Jesus 
is  not  mentioned  nor  necessarily  implied,  yet  this  relation 
is  represented  as  fundamental  in  various  unquestioned 
passages.1  And  second,  in  this  judgment  scene  of  Mat- 
thew, the  ministry  which  wins  the  Father's  Kingdom  is 
ministry  to  the  King's  "brethren,"  but  both  the  example 
and  precept  of  Jesus  enjoin  the  duty  of  service  toward  all 
who  need  service,  and  not  simply  toward  the  righteous.2 
We  pass  now  to  Mt.  18 :20,  with  which  the  related  pas- 
sage 28 :20b  is  to  be  coupled.  The  assertion  of  Jesus  in 
18 :20  that  he  would  be  with  two  or  three  disciples  gath- 
ered in  his  name  and  the  kindred  assertion  of  the  risen 
Lord  to  the  eleven  apostles  that  he  would  be  with  them 
always,  even  unto  the  consummation  of  the  age,  are  not 
only  peculiar  to  Matthew,  but  like  the  entire  series  of 
passages  which  have  just  been  considered  they  are  alien 
to  the  common  tradition  of  the  Lord's  teaching.  The 
Logia  has  no  intimation  of  this  thought.  On  the  con- 
trary in  the  word  of  encouragement  to  his  disciples  in 
view  of  future  need,  which  Matthew  took  from  the  Logia 
(10-20),  Jesus  says:  "It  is  not  ye  who  speak  but  the 
Spirit  of  your  Father  speaketh  in  you."     He  turns  their 

'See  Mk.  8:38;  Mt.  10:32-33;  16:24-26;  7:24;  8:5-13;  io:395  Mk.  9:37, 
with  their  Lucan  parallels. 

'See,  e.g.,   Mk.   10:45;  Lk.   10:25-37;   I5« 


32  THE  SOURCES 

thought  not  to  his  own  presence  with  them  but  to  the 
presence  of  the  Father.  As  in  the  Logia,  so  in  the  later 
Gospel  narrative,  the  thought  of  a  future  presence  of 
Jesus  with  his  disciples  is  excluded.  The  triple  tradition 
speaks  of  his  "rising,"1  but  not  of  his  continuing  on  earth. 
Such  continuance  would  conflict  with  the  frequently- 
expressed  idea  of  a  coming  of  the  Son  of  Man.2  When 
Jesus  took  leave  of  his  disciples  on  the  evening  before  his 
crucifixion,  he  alluded  to  a  reunion  in  the  Kingdom  of 
God — a  fact  which  is  obviously  at  variance  with  the  idea 
of  Mt.  18:20. 

Finally,  peculiar  to  Matthew  and  at  the  same  time 
foreign  to  the  common  synoptic  teaching  is  the  passage 
28:i8-2oa.  The  assurance  of  the  oldest  Gospel  (16:7) 
was  that  in  Galilee  the  disciples  should  "see"  the  risen 
one ;  there  was  no  promise  or  suggestion  of  new  teaching. 
Paul  speaks  of  appearances  of  the  risen  Lord,  but  does 
not  intimate  that  he  gave  further  teaching  to  his  disciples. 
Thus  the  very  circumstance  that,  according  to  Mt.  28: 
i8-2oa,  a  weighty  teaching  was  communicated  to  the 
disciples  by  the  risen  Master  is  suspicious.  It  is  not 
supported  by  Mark  or  Paul,  who  give  us  our  earliest 
material  bearing  on  the  resurrection.  But  this  teaching 
itself  is  the  insuperable  obstacle  in  the  way  of  accepting 
the  genuineness  of  the  passage.  When  examined  in  the 
light  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus  in  word  and  deed,  this 
alleged  post-resurrection  utterance  is  found  wanting. 

It  is  unlike  the  synoptic  Jesus,  in  the  first  place,  to 
declare  that  all  authority  in  heaven  and  on  earth  has  been 
given  to  him.  The  only  seeming  parallel  is  in  Mt.  1 1 127, 
but  when  examined  closely  that  is  found  to  be  far  from 
parallel  to  the  passage  before  us.  For  the  "all  things" 
of  which  that  passage  speaks  are  obviously  the  knozvl- 
edge  of  the  Father  which  Jesus  possessed — a  statement 
quite  different  from  a  claim  to  all  authority  in  heaven  and 
on  earth.  But  were  one  to  assume  that  this  high  author- 
ity had  been  conferred  on  Jesus  after  his  resurrection, 
then  one  would  make  an  assumption  which  nothing  in  the 

1  See  Mk.  8:31;  9:31;   10:34  with  parallels. 
3  E.g.,  Mk.  8:38;   13:26;   14:62. 


THE   SYNOPTIC   GOSPELS 


33 


words  of  Jesus  remotely  suggests.  But  this  claim  to  all 
authority  does  not  stand  here  by  itself :  it  is  part  of  the 
writer's  conception  of  Christ  and  is  supplemented  by  the 
following  verse.  For  doubtless  by  placing  the  Son  be- 
tween the  Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit  the  writer  wished 
to  be  understood  as  claiming  for  him  essential  divinity. 
This  claim  brings  the  passage  into  line  with  the  Chris- 
tology  of  Paul's  later  epistles  and  of  the  fourth  Gospel. 
How  far  removed  it  is  from  the  teaching  of  Jesus  himself 
may  be  indicated  with  sufficient  clearness  and  complete- 
ness by  a  survey  of  what  he  claims  for  himself  according 
to  the  Logia.  We  have  the  most  comprehensive  state- 
ment of  his  claims  in  Mt.  1 1 127.  According  to  this  state- 
ment, Jesus  and  he  alone  has  a  complete  knowledge  of 
the  Father,  and  he  can  impart  this  to  other  receptive 
souls.  One  conscious  of  possessing  this  knowledge  and 
power  could  say,  as  Jesus  did,  that  the  man  who  heard 
and  did  his  words  was  like  one  who  builds  on  the  rock 
(Mt.  7:24);  he  could  reasonably  look  for  faith  in  his 
word  and  rejoice  when  he  found  it  (Mt.  8:10)  ;  he  could 
say  that  confession  or  denial  of  him  was  of  transcendent 
importance  (Mk.  8 138;  Mt.  10:32)  ;  he  could  say  that  the 
members  of  his  kingdom  were  greater  than  John  the 
Baptist,  though  John  was  equal  to  any  of  the  former 
prophets  (Mt.  11:11);  he  could  declare  that  he  had 
come  to  fulfil  the  Old  Testament  (Mt.  5:17),  and  also 
that  something  greater  than  Jonah  and  greater  than  Sol- 
omon had  been  manifested  in  his  appearance  and  work 
(Mt.  1241-42)  ;  and  because  all  this  was  true,  he  could 
pronounce  his  disciples  more  blessed  than  the  kings  and 
prophets  of  old  (Mt.  13:16-17).  Yea  more,  one  con- 
scious of  possessing  this  knowledge  of  the  Father  and  of 
an  appointment  to  transmit  it  to  others  might  naturally 
believe  that  the  "day  of  Jehovah"  known  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment would  at  last  appear  as  the  "day  of  the  Son  of 
Man"  (Lk.  17:23,  24,  27).  # 

Thus,  according  to  the  Logia,  Jesus,  though  in  the  line 

of  the  prophets,  was  far  above  them.     He  had  a  unique 

mission  as  revealer  of  God  and  builder  of  his  kingdom. 

But  the  Logia  document  does  not  enter  at  all  into  the 

3 


34  THE   SOURCES 

sphere  of  thought  of  Mt.  28:19.  It  involves  the  con- 
sciousness of  a  unique  knowledge  of  God,  but  contains 
no  suggestion  regarding  transcendental  relationships. 

Again,  it  does  not  accord  with  the  synoptic  representa- 
tion of  Jesus  that  he  is  here  in  Mt.  28:18  made  to  ground 
the  commission  of  his  disciples  upon  his  authority.  It 
was  not  his  way  to  seek  results  by  the  assertion  of  per- 
sonal claims.  He  believed  himself  to  be  the  Messiah,  but 
never  either  in  his  public  relations  or  in  relation  to  his 
own  chosen  apostles  did  he  put  this  claim  forward  as  a 
reason  why  men  should  hear  and  do  his  word.  His  way 
was  to  reveal  and  enforce  the  truth,  and  trust  to  its  own 
divine  power  to  bring  men  into  fellowship  with  him.  It 
is  therefore  distinctly  unlike  Jesus  to  make  his  authority, 
whether  on  earth  or  in  heaven,  the  reason  why  his  dis- 
ciples should  go  out  and  disciple  all  the  nations.  His 
principle  is  expressed  rather  in  the  word,  "Freely  ye 
received,  freely  give"  (Mt.  10:8).  It  is  the  nature  of  his 
disciples,  since  they  are  the  "leaven"  of  the  kingdom 
(Mt.  13:33),  to  work  for  its  extension.  As  children  of 
God  they  must  live  in  his  spirit,  showing  mercy  and  doing 
good  as  did  the  Son  of  Man  who  came  to  minister 
(Mk.  10:45). 

Once  more,  had  Jesus  given  his  eleven  apostles  an 
explicit  command  to  go  forth  to  all  the  nations,  it  would 
be  difficult  indeed  to  explain  why  they  clung  to  Jerusalem 
and  to  the  ministry  to  their  own  people,  difficult  to  ex- 
plain why  even  Peter  must  be  instructed  by  a  vision  before 
he  would  take  the  Gospel  into  a  Gentile  home.  A  clear 
and  positive  word  from  their  Lord  would  have  overcome 
their  scruples.  It  would  surely  have  been  as  potent  with 
Peter  as  was  a  dream  which  he  had  difficulty  in  under- 
standing (Acts  10:17). 

Finally,  it  is  quite  foreign  to  the  synoptic  representation 
of  Jesus  to  suppose  that  he  instituted  baptism  after  he 
was  risen  from  the  dead.  There  is  not  in  the  synoptists 
a  single  allusion  to  baptism  as  associated  with  entrance 
into  the  circle  of  Christ's  followers.  Not  only  so,  but 
there  is  explicit  teaching  to  the  effect  that  men  become 
members  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  on  the  fulfilment  of  cer- 


THE  SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS  35 

tain  spiritual  conditions.1  It  is  impossible  to  believe  that 
Jesus  said  nothing  to  his  disciples  about  baptism  while 
with  them  in  the  flesh,  and  then,  after  the  resurrection, 
while  with  them  in  such  a  manner  that  some  even  doubted 
his  presence  (Mt.  28 117),  instructed  them  to  baptize  their 
converts.  The  synoptic  record  of  the  earthly  ministry  of 
Jesus  is  unanimously  and  absolutely  opposed  to  the  gen- 
uineness of  this  alleged  post-resurrection  teaching  on  bap- 
tism. And  we  could  scarcely  say  less  if  we  should  look 
at  apostolic  practice.  For  that  practice,  as  described  in 
Acts  and  Paul's  epistles  was  to  baptize  into  the  name  of 
Jesus  only,2  but  if  the  eleven  apostles  had  been  positively 
commanded  by  the  risen  Lord  to  baptize  into  the  name  of 
the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the 
custom  of  the  early  Church  would  be  unintelligible.3 

Thus  every  clause  of  this  passage  in  Mt.  28:i8-2oa  has 
against  it  the  unbroken  evidence  of  the  Logia  and  the 
common  tradition  of  the  synoptic  Gospels.  It  is  intel- 
ligible as  an  expression  of  Christian  belief  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  first  century,  and  as  such  it  must  be  regarded. 

This  survey  of  Matthew's  peculiar  material  reveals  in 
it  an  element*  which,  especially  in  regard  to  the  super- 
natural in  the  life  of  Jesus,  in  regard  also  to  his  person 
and  the  doctrine  of  the  Church,  is  widely  different  from 
the  earliest  sources.  The  recognition  of  this  fact  is  of 
fundamental  importance  for  the  historical  understanding 
of  our  subject 

70.  Historical  Value  of  the  Various  Strata  of  Matthew 's 
Gospel. 
Literary  analysis  of  the  synoptic  material  discloses  the 
fact  that  our  first  Gospel  consists  of  three  main  deposits 
—the  Logia,  the  narrative  of  Mark,  and  the  heterogeneous 
matter  which  is  peculiar  to  this  Gospel. 

»See,  e.g.,  Mk.  8:34;  3=355  ™J*S-  .      ; 

'See  Acts  2-18:   16:2;  Rom.  6:3;  Gal.  3:27;  Col.  2:12. 
•The  practice3  of  bapt  sm  in  the  early  Church  may  have  been  due  to  the 
fact  that  T  was  practiced  in  the  Messianic  movement  under  John  and  that 

J"UMahtSclJ'sSpUecuiiaerd material  is  not  all  on  the  same  level  Some  parts 
of  it  e  e  TectiJns  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  are  of  the  highest  intrinsic 
^edibility.  Thus  the  writer  seems  to  have  drawn  from  some  good  source 
besides  the  Logia. 


36  THE   SOURCES 

The  Aramaic  Logic  document  was  very  probably  com- 
piled by  the  apostle  Matthew,  but  of  its  rendering  into 
Greek  we  have  no  knowledge.  That  the  author  of  the 
first  Gospel  handled  this  Lo^to-material  with  a  consider- 
able degree  of  freedom  has  already  been  shown.  Its 
essential  character,  however,  was  not  altered  by  him,  as 
appears  from  a  comparative  study  of  his  version  of  the 
Logia  with  that  of  Luke.  The  historical  worth  of  the 
Logia  is  attested  by  a  variety  of  facts.  The  document 
contains,  implicitly,  a  simple  and  self-consistent  portrait  of 
Jesus ;  it  is  without  theological  or  speculative  elements ;  it 
is  in  accord  with  the  general  facts  of  the  triple  tradition 
of  Jesus'  life;  and  by  its  incorporation  in  both  of  the 
Synoptic  Gospels  which  aim  to  give  a  picture  of  Jesus 
not  only  as  a  teacher  but  also  as  a  doer  of  deeds,  it  bears 
in  a  marked  degree  the  imprimatur  of  the  early  Church. 
Its  value  therefore  as  a  source  of  knowledge  regarding 
the  historical  Jesus  is  supreme. 

The  second  stratum  of  Matthew's  Gospel  is  that  ele- 
ment which  it  took  from  Mark.  But  Mark,  as  Papias 
says,  was  not  himself  a  follower  of  the  Lord,  and  though 
he  may  have  had  Peter  as  a  chief  source  of  his  informa- 
tion, his  narrative  as  a  whole  has  not  quite  the  same  claim 
to  authority  that  may  be  advanced  for  the  Logia. 
Whether  the  Logia  as  a  written  document  was  earlier  than 
Mark's  Gospel  or  not,  the  traditional  collector  of  the  Logia 
stood  nearer  to  Jesus.  Yet  Mark's  narrative  of  the  life 
of  Jesus  in  distinction  from  his  word  is  our  primary  docu- 
ment, and  as  far  as  the  second  stratum  in  Matthew's 
Gospel  is  in  essential  agreement  with  its  Marcan  source,  it 
obviously  has  the  weight  of  that  source.  Of  the  third 
element  in  Matthew's  Gospel — the  matter  which  is  pecu- 
liar to  this  document — the  historical  value  is  clearly  not 
uniform,  nor  the  source  one  and  the  same.  The  small 
percentage  of  new  incidents,  as  has  already  been  indi- 
cated, has  a  color  given  by  its  supernatural  element  which 
differentiates  it  from  the  common  synoptic  type  and  marks 
it  as  of  secondary  worth.  But  the  greater  part  of  the 
words  attributed  to  Jesus  in  this  part  of  Matthew's  Gos- 
pel are  in  essential  agreement  with  the  Logia,  and  indeed 


THE  SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS 


37 


may  have  been  derived,  at  least  in  part,  from  that  source.1 
In  strong  contrast  with  this  element  is  that  which  was 
considered  in  the  last  section — those  passages  in  Mat- 
thew's peculiar  material  that  concern  the  person  of  Christ 
and  those  that  concern  the  Church.  In  spirit  and  doc- 
trine these  stand  at  the  farthest  remove  from  the  Logia 
and  from  the  common  synoptic  tradition.  They  are  thus 
shown  to  belong  to  the  early  Christian  interpretation  and 
application  of  the  Gospel.  Thus  what  we  have  called  the 
third  element  of  Matthew,  when  regarded  from  the  point 
of  view  of  its  origin,  splits  into  two  parts,  one  of  which  is 
early,  the  other  late.  The  second  may  be  assigned  to  the 
evangelist  himself. 

//.     Luke's  Use  of  Mark  as  a  Source. 

Luke  incorporates  in  his  narrative  about  seventy-six 
per  cent  of  the  Gospel  of  Mark.  There  are  thirteen  pas- 
sages, aggregating  140  verses,  which  he  omits.2  A  prob- 
able reason  can  be  assigned  for  the  omission  of  some  of 
these  passages.  Thus  Luke  may  have  omitted  Mark's 
call  of  the  four  disciples  near  Capernaum  (1:16-20) 
because  he  wished  to  use  another  story  in  his  possession 
which  was  to  some  extent  parallel  (5:1-9),  and  he  may 
have  passed  over  the  charge  that  Jesus  was  beside  himself 
(3:20-21)  because  he  was  to  make  use  of  the  accusation 
that  he  cast  out  demons  by  Beelzebub  (n  :i5).  A  sim- 
ilar reason  may  be  given  in  some  other  instances.3  It  is 
not  improbable  that  Luke  omitted  the  story  of  feeding 
4000  (Mk.  8:1-10)  because  he  regarded  it  as  another 
version  of  the  feeding  of  the  multitudes  near  Bethsaida 
(6:31-34).  Then,  again,  some  of  the  passages  of  Mark 
which  Luke  omits  may  well  have  seemed  to  him  unsuit- 
able for  his  Gentile  readers  because  of  their  strong  Jewish 
fharacter,  for  example,  the  section  in  regard  to  ceremonial 
purity  (7:1-23).  It  is  possible  that  he  omitted  the  story 
of  the  selfish  wish  of  James  and  John  (10:35-40)  because 
it  reflected  unpleasantly  on  men  who,  when  he  wrote,  were 

1  Thus,  e.g.,  Holtzmann  treats  the  entire  Sermon  on  the  Mount  as  from  Q. 
3  1:16-20;  3:20-21;  4:26-29;  6:19-29;  6:45-8:26;  9:9-13;  9:42-10:12;   10:35- 
40;   11:12-14,30-26;   12:28-34;  13:33-37;  14:23-28;  15:1,  16-20. 
•E.g.,  Mk.  8:1-10,  22-26;  13:33-37;  15:16-20. 


38  THE  SOURCES 

held  in  high  esteem  throughout  the  Church.  Thus  there 
seems  to  be  no  difficulty  in  supposing  that  Luke,  though 
he  does  not  give  certain  sections  of  Mark's  narrative,  had 
the  entire  Gospel  before  him. 

As  regards  the  Marcan  order  of  narrating  the  events  in 
the  life  of  Jesus,  it  was  adopted  by  Luke  even  more 
largely  than  was  Mark's  material.  There  are  only  ten 
points  at  which  he  departs  from  the  order  of  the  earlier 
Gospel,  and  two  of  these  are  not  incidents  but  parables.1 
Thus,  as  regards  the  general  framework  of  the  life  of 
Jesus,  Mark's  narrative  had  a  determinative  influence  on 
Luke.  This  writer  was  obviously  not  satisfied  with 
Mark's  Gospel  as  a  whole,  but  it  is  equally  plain  that  he 
had  no  radical  criticism  to  make  on  Mark's  order. 

But  although  Luke's  use  of  Mark  as  a  source  was  thus 
comprehensive  in  respect  both  to  the  matter  and  the  order, 
his  formal  reproduction  of  the  Marcan  material  was  char- 
acterized by  great  freedom.  As  a  Greek  of  cultivated 
literary  tastes  he  recast  the  somewhat  rough  un-Hellenic 
speech  of  the  narrative  before  him.  He  chose  Greek 
words  for  Mark's  occasional  Aramaic  and  Latin  terms,2 
and  in  place  of  Mark's  simple  verbs  he  frequently  sets  the 
more  suggestive  compound  ones.8  He  transformed  into 
select  speech  the  provincial,  common  or  vulgar  language 
of  his  source.  He  also  abbreviated  or  expanded,  as  he 
saw  fit.  How  he  used  his  Marcan  source  in  this  respect 
brief  study  of  a  single  concrete  case  will  indicate.  For 
this  purpose  we  take  the  story  of  the  Gerasene  demoniac 
(Mk.  5:1-20;  Lk.  8:26-39),  though  almost  any  other  pas- 
sage would  serve  as  well.  Mark  says  of  Jesus  and  his 
disciples  that  they  "came"  to  the  country  of  the  Gerasenes, 
Luke  says  they  "sailed  down"  there;  Mark  that  they 
came  to  the  "other  side,"  Luke  that  they  came  to  the 
other  side  of  the  "lake,"  and  adds  that  the  region  to 
which  they  came  was  "over  against  Galilee."  The  de- 
moniac who  met  them  as  they  disembarked  was,  accord- 

1  The  Lucan  references  are  3:19-20;  4:16;  5:1-11;  6:12-16;  8:4-8,  19-21; 
13:18-19;    18:15-17;  22:15-20,  31-34. 

•For  example.  o.\t}&U>s  instead  of  «/*'>»'> 4>opo<;  instead  of  t^cro?,  Ivo  Xttrra  instead 
of  KoSpavTTfi. 

8  See,  e.g.,  4:42;  8:6;  9:47;  18:22;  19:36;  20:10  with  the  Marcan  parallels. 


THE  SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS  39 

ing  to  Mark,  "in  an  unclean  spirit"— whatever  he  may 
have  meant  by  this  phrase;  Luke  says  that  he  "had 
demons."  Mark  represents  the  demoniac  as  saying  to 
Jesus  "I  adjure  thee,"  but  Luke,  as  though  thinking  this 
term  somewhat  unsuited  to  such  a  creature  in  his  ap- 
proach to  Jesus,  lets  him  say  "I  pray  thee."  When  Mark 
changes  abruptly  and  without  apparent  reason  from  an 
historical  tense  to  the  present,  Luke  consistently  uses  the 
historical  tense.1  The  demon  says,  according  to  Mark, 
"My  name  is  legion,  for  we  are  many;"  but  Luke,  to 
avoid  this  obscure  passing  from  the  singular  to  the 
plural,  lets  the  man's  answer  be  simply  "Legion,"  and 
then  adds  in  way  of  explanation,  "for  many  demons  had 
entered  into  him."  And  finally,  where  Mark  relates  that 
the  demoniac  besought  Jesus  that  he  would  not  send  them 
out  of  the  country,  Luke  lets  the  request  come  from  the 
demons  themselves,  and  then,  in  place  of  the  Jewish  con- 
ception that  the  demons  might  not  like  to  leave  that 
particular  region — perhaps  because  it  was  wild  and  rocky 
and  largely  inhabited  by  Gentiles,  Luke  substitutes  the 
classical  conception  of  the  "abyss." 

These  are  not  all  the  modifications  that  Luke  makes  in 
the  brief  passage,  but  they  are  the  chief,  and  sufficiently 
illustrate  the  point  that  he  freely  expanded  or  abbreviated 
his  source. 

One  important  fact  remains  to  be  noted  in  Luke's  rela- 
tion to  Mark  as  a  source,  namely,  that  his  freedom  in 
modifying  the  words  of  Jesus  in  his  Marcan  source  is 
perceptibly  more  limited  than  his  freedom  in  handling 
the  narrative  sections.  Speaking  only  in  approximate 
terms  and  with  the  distinct  admission  that  it  is  difficult  to 
state  this  literary  difference  arithmetically,  we  may  say 
that  where  Luke  departs  once  from  Mark's  version  of 
words  of  Jesus,  he  departs  twice  from  Mark's  narrative. 
We  speak  now  of  departures  which  affect  the  sense,  for 
in  regard  to  literary  form  alone  Luke  rarely  leaves  Mark's 
version  of  words  of  Jesus  wholly  unchanged.  The 
greater  freedom  with  which  he  handles  the  narrative  parts 

»See  ett  Mk  s:o;  8:3.  Hawkins,  in  work  cited,  pp.  144-149,  gives  a 
list  oTiSi  historical  presents  in  Mk.,  78  in  Mt.  and  4  <or  6)  in  Lk. 


40  THE   SOURCES 

of  his  source  is  an  indication  that  he  did  not  feel  for  these 
quite  the  same  reverence  that  he  felt  for  Mark's  version 
of  the  Master's  sayings. 

12.     Luke's  Use  of  the  Logia  as  a  Source. 

The  first  point  that  invites  attention  in  a  survey  of 
Luke's  use  of  the  Logia  is  the  manner  in  which  he  intro- 
duces various  words  of  Jesus.  There  are  not  less  than 
ten  instances  in  which  he  either  gives  an  historical  intro- 
duction to  a  saying  of  Jesus  or  sets  it  in  a  connection 
which  is  preferable  to  that  in  which  Matthew  puts  it. 
Some  of  these  cases  are  of  great  interest  and  importance, 
and  in  most  of  them  at  least  it  seems  quite  certain  that 
Luke  did  not  furnish  the  introduction  out  of  his  own 
sense  of  the  fitness  of  things  as  Thucydides  composed  the 
speeches  which  he  put  on  the  lips  of  various  characters 
in  his  great  history,  but  drew  from  some  historical  source, 
presumably  from  the  Logic  itself.  When  the  author  of 
the  first  Gospel  decided  to  group  the  sayings  of  Jesus 
according  to  their  content,  he  was  obliged  to  ignore  the 
hints  which  his  source  gave  in  regard  to  the  occasion  of 
each  individual  saying.  Luke  may  not  always  have 
found  the  sayings  of  the  Logia  associated  with  a  definite 
occasion,  indeed  it  is  improbable  that  such  can  have  been 
the  case,  and  furthermore  he  may  not  in  every  instance 
have  followed  the  hints  which  his  document  contained, 
for  he  appears  always  to  have  considered  it  his  duty  to 
exercise  his  own  judgment  in  dealing  with  his  sources, 
but  the  instances  in  which  he  furnishes  the  words  of  Jesus 
with  a  fitting  occasion  are  so  many  and  the  setting  so  suit- 
able that  it  would  be  unwarrantable  to  conclude  that  he 
did  not  find  these  data  in  the  Logia. 

The  significance  of  his  attitude  toward  the  Logia  in 
this  respect  can  be  indicated  by  a  glance  at  the  passages 
in  question.  He  teaches  that  the  Lord's  Prayer  was  given 
in  response  to  a  request  of  some  disciples  who  were 
familiar  with  the  Baptist's  example,  and  not  on  the 
initiative  of  Jesus  (Mt.  6:9;  Lk.  11:1).  The  saying 
about  a  narrow  gate  and  a  wide  one  was  occasioned, 
according  to  Luke   (13:23),  by  the  query  of  a  certain 


THE  SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS  41 

one,  "Lord,  are  they  few  that  are  saved?"  The  solemn 
word  concerning  those  who  in  the  judgment  will  say: 
"We  did  eat  and  drink  in  thy  presence,  and  thou  didst 
teach  in  our  streets,"  is  put  by  Luke  (13:26)  much  later 
than  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  where  it  is  found  in  Mat- 
thew, as  is  also  the  saying,  "The  harvest  is  plenteous  but 
the  laborers  are  few"  (Lk.  10:2),  which  obviously  does 
not  suit  the  day  when  the  Twelve  were  first  sent  forth  in 
Galilee,  for  at  that  time  one  could  hardly  have  said  so 
much  as  that  there  were  even  a  "few"  Christian  laborers. 
The  word  of  Jesus  that  his  disciples  should  put  him  higher 
than  father  and  mother,  and  that  they  should  follow  him, 
each  bearing  his  own  cross,  was  spoken,  according  to 
Luke  (14:25),  when  a  multitude  were  following  him  and 
after  the  outcome  of  his  career  was  clear  to  his  thought, 
and  the  word  is  more  intelligible  as  spoken  on  this  occa- 
sion than  when  regarded  as  a  part  of  the  message  given 
to  the  Twelve  when  they  were  sent  out  in  Galilee.  The 
Great  Confession,  which  in  Matthew  is  out  of  connection 
with  the  foregoing  narrative  (11 :25),  has  in  Luke  (10: 
21)  a  clear  historical  motive.  Again,  the  parable  of  the 
Great  Supper  which,  according  to  Matthew  (22:1-14), 
was  given  by  Jesus  on  his  own  initiative,  has  in  Luke  a 
definite  and  most  suitable  setting  (14:15-24).  The  say- 
ing about  the  Faithful  Steward  was  occasioned,  Luke  tells 
us  (12:41),  by  a  question  of  Peter,  and  the  parable  of  the 
Minas  (19:11-27)  is  said  to  have  been  spoken  as  Jesus 
and  the  Twelve  were  going  up  to  Jerusalem  with  the 
caravan  for  the  last  Passover,  when  there  was  an  expec- 
tation that  the  kingdom  of  heaven  was  about  to  appear. 

The  inference  that  seems  to  be  justified  by  the  fore- 
going data  is  that  we  have  greater  fidelity  to  the  Logia 
in  Luke  than  in  Matthew.1  But  this  inference  is  con- 
firmed, it  seems  to  me,  by  the  analysis  of  the  Lucan  form 
of  separate  sayings  of  Jesus  as  compared  with  the  form 
in  Matthew.     There  are  many  sayings  in  regard  to  which 

1  Hawkins,  p.  112,  regards  the  question  whether  Matthew  or  Luke  was 
the  more  faithful  to  the  Logia  as  ''unsolved  and  probably  insoluble.  Sol- 
tau,  Unsere  Evangelien  ihre  Quellen  und  thr  Quellen  werth,  1901,  holds 
that  Luke  had  a  different  collection  of  Logia  from  Matthew,  perhaps  a 
Jewish-Christian  edition. 


42  THE    SOURCES 

no  attempt  will  here  be  made  to  decide  between  the 
Matthaean  and  the  Lucan  version.1  There  is  at  least  one 
— there  are  more  in  the  judgment  of  some  writers — of 
which  Luke's  version  appears  less  satisfactory  than  Mat- 
thew's. This  is  11:13  (Mt.  7:11).  In  Matthew  the 
passage  on  Prayer  closes  with  the  words,  "How  much 
more  shall  your  Father  who  is  in  heaven  give  good  things 
to  those  who  ask  him  ?"  but  the  Lucan  conclusion  is, 
"How  much  more  shall  your  heavenly  Father  give  a 
holy  spirit  (ttvcv/ui  ayiov)  to  those  who  ask  him?"  Now 
as  Jesus,  according  to  both  writers,  is  not  contrasting 
gifts  but  givers,  Luke's  introduction  of  "holy  spirit" 
where  Matthew  has  "good  things"  may  not  improbably 
show  the  influence  of  a  time  when  the  doctrine  of  the 
Spirit  had  come  to  have  a  much  larger  place  in  Christian 
thought  than  it  had  in  the  synoptic  words  of  Jesus. 

I  »nt  over  against  this  single  passage  there  is  a  con- 
siderable number  of  others  in  which  Luke's  version  is 
favored  by  the  internal  evidence  and  by  its  congruity  with 
the  general  character  of  the  synoptic  teaching  of  Jesus. 
These  must  now  be  briefly  considered. 

Of  the  Lucan  form  of  the  Lord's  Prayer  we  have 
spoken  in  a  previous  paragraph.  Luke's  version  of  the 
story  about  a  centurion  at  Capernaum  whose  servant 
Jesus  healed  (7:1-10)  takes  precedence  of  that  in  Mat- 
thew (8:5-13).  For,  in  the  first  place,  it  is  intrinsically 
probable  that  a  Gentile  who  wished  to  secure  a  favor  from 
the  Jewish  teacher  and  healer  would  have  sent  Jewish 
friends  to  present  his  request,  as  Luke  says  was  the  case. 
The  centurion  must  have  known  how  averse  the  Jews 
were  to  any  association  with  Gentiles,  and  Jesus  had  not 
as  yet  been  known  to  have  any  dealing  whatever  with 
foreigners.  Again,  the  passage  in  Matthew,  since  its 
chief  aim  is  to  warn  Jews,  is  not  especially  suited  to  the 
preceding  context,  wrhile  its  parallel  in  Luke  stands  in 
another  connection  with  which  it  fully  accords.  In  both 
these  points  then  the  Lucan  form  of  the  incident  com- 
mends itself. 

1  For  example,  Mt.  6:27=Lk.  12:25;  Mt.  n:i2=Lk.  16:16;  Mt.  10:15  = 
Lk.   10:12;  Mt.   io:28  =  Lk.   12:4;  Mt.  8:2i=Lk.  9:59. 


THE   SYNOPTIC   GOSPELS  43 

Passing  by  the  saying  about  the  "sign  of  Jonah,"  the 
double  version  of  which  has  already  been  discussed  in 
another  connection,  we  come  to  Luke  10:23-24.  The 
hour  in  which  this  word  was  spoken  was  that  when  the 
disciples  returned  with  the  joyous  message  regarding 
their  power  over  demons  (10:17)  and  when  Jesus 
thanked  the  Father  for  what  he  had  revealed  to  the  dis- 
ciples. Jesus  then  said  to  his  followers,  "Blessed  are  the 
eyes  which  see  the  things  that  ye  see :  for  I  say  unto  you, 
that  many  prophets  and  kings  desired  to  see  the  things 
which  ye  see,  and  saw  them  not ;  and  to  hear  the  things 
which  ye  hear,  and  heard  them  not."  This  saying  suits 
the  context.  The  disciples  are  congratulated  by  the 
Master  on  their  opportunities,  which  prophets  and  kings 
had  desired  in  vain.  But  Matthew  forces  the  saying  into 
an  entirely  different  context.  Jesus  had  just  told  his 
disciples  why  he  spoke  to  the  multitudes  in  parables 
(13:10),  and  then  he  congratulated  them  that  they  in 
contrast  to  the  multitude  had  seeing  eyes  and  hearing 
ears.  This  word  was  followed  by  the  thought  of  the 
present  opportunity,  the  same  thought  as  in  Luke.  Thus 
the  version  of  Matthew  embodies  ideas  that  are  not  ac- 
cordant. The  disciples  are  contrasted  with  prophets  and 
righteous  men  of  the  past,  yet  these  did  not  lack  seeing 
eyes  and  hearing  ears :  what  they  lacked  was  a  vision  of 
God's  fulfilment  of  his  promise.  Thus  the  thought  of 
Luke  10 123-24  has  suffered  change  in  Matthew  to  suit  it 
to  a  different  occasion. 

The  introduction  to  the  saying  of  Lk.  14  '.26  has  already 
been  noticed.  This  saying  in  itself  appears  worthy  to  be 
called  the  original  rather  than  that  of  Matthew's  parallel 
(10:37).  Luke  says,  "If  any  one  cometh  unto  me  and 
hateth  not  his  father  and  mother"  etc.,  but  Matthew  gives 
what  may  be  regarded  as  an  interpretation  of  this  hard 
word,  for  he  says,  "He  that  loveth  father  or  mother  more 
than  me  is  not  worthy  of  me."  Had  this  been  the  form 
of  the  saying  in  the  Logia  it  is  hardly  probable  that  any 
one  would  have  changed  it  into  the  Lucan  expression,  but 
this  Lucan  expression,. on  the  contrary,  might  easily  have 
taken  the  softened  form  of  Matthew. 


44  THE   SOURCES 

When  speaking  of  Matthew's  freedom  in  handling  the 
Logia  the  parable  of  the  Great  Supper  or  King's  Wed- 
ding Feast  was  considered,  and  perhaps  it  is  not  needful 
to  say  more  of  that  passage,  though  the  secondary  char- 
acter of  Matthew  might  be  more  strongly  stated.  We 
will  pass  on  to  the  parable  of  the  Minas  (Lk.  19:11-27) 
and  its  parallel  in  Matthew  (25:14-30).  The  general 
purpose  of  the  two  narratives  is  identical  and  the  method 
in  both  is  the  same.  The  kingdom  is  not  to  appear  at 
once,  and  in  the  meantime  the  disciples  are  given  service 
in  the  interest  of  their  absent  Lord.  It  is  a  time  of  test- 
ing, and  will  be  followed  by  awards  suited  to  each  one's 
faithfulness  to  his  trust.  Thus  the  two  passages  are 
apparently  variants  of  one  original,  and  only  by  their 
analysis  can  it  be  determined  which  may  claim  to  be 
nearer  to  the  Logia.  Here  as  in  preceding  cases  the  his- 
torical introduction  is  not  without  significance.  The  fact 
that  Luke  gives  an  intelligible  setting  of  the  parable 
favors  his  version  of  it.  But  there  are  also  other  points 
which  speak  for  the  greater  originality  of  his  form  of  the 
parable.  There  is  first  its  greater  simplicity  and  clear- 
ness. The  servant  who  gains  ten  minas  is  appointed  over 
ten  cities  and  he  who  gains  five  is  set  over  five  cities.  The 
award  is  proportionate  to  the  achievement;  and  it  is  also 
intelligible.  In  Matthew,  on  the  other  hand,  the  man 
who  handles  five  talents  receives  the  same  award  as  the 
one  who  handles  but  two,  and  a  part  of  their  common 
award  is  indefinite  and  unsuitable  from  the  parable's 
business  point  of  view.  That  is  the  invitation,  "Enter 
into  the  joy  of  thy  Lord."  But  this  is  vague.  Does  it 
mean  that  the  faithful  servant  is  summoned  to  a  perman- 
ent place  in  the  household  of  his  lord  and  to  a  share  in 
all  his  personal  comforts  ?  Would  that,  however,  be  sup- 
ported by  any  known  facts  out  of  the  business  life  of 
Palestine  in  the  time  of  Jesus?  Probably  we  are  to  see 
here  a  reflection  of  the  Christian  hope  that  the  faithful 
disciple  will  share  in  the  heavenly  glory  of  Christ.  If  so, 
then  this  passage  as  compared  with  the  simpler  concep- 
tion in  Luke  must  be  regarded  as  later  and  secondary. 
A  reference  to  the  Christian's  future  reward  may  easily 


THE   SYNOPTIC   GOSPELS 


45 


be  understood  as  an  interpretative  modification  of  the 
original  parable,  but  it  obviously  cannot  be  regarded  as 
germane  to  the  story  itself,  which  is  taken  from  the  busi- 
ness world. 

Again,  the  treatment  of  the  unprofitable  servant  in  the 
Lucan  version  is  more  congruous  with  the  general  tenor 
of  the  parable  than  is  his  treatment  in  the  version  of 
Matthew.  For  in  Luke  his  judgment  consists  simply  in 
the  withdrawal  of  the  unused  mina,  while  in  Matthew  he 
not  only  loses  the  money  entrusted  to  him  but  is  "cast  out 
into  the  outer  darkness"  where  there  is  "the  weeping 
and  the  gnashing  of  teeth."  Manifestly  this  symbolism 
does  not  suit  the  sphere  of  business  relations  to  which  the 
parable  belongs.  It  is  the  symbolism  which  in  the  first 
Gospel  is  always  associated  with  the  final  judgment  of 
men.1  But  this  blending  of  two  distinct  spheres  of 
thought  in  one  parable  must  be  regarded  as  secondary  in 
comparison  with  the  simple  conclusion  in  Luke. 

The  data  which  have  now  been  considered  seem  to  con- 
firm the  inference  drawn  from  Luke's  introductions  to 
various  sayings  of  Jesus,  namely,  that  he  has  preserved 
the  Logia  in  a  purer  form  than  that  of  Matthew. 

13.    Luke's  Peculiar  Material. 

Of  the  1 149  verses  in  the  Gospel  according  to  Luke 
about  398,  or  a  little  more  than  one-third,  are  his  own. 
A  little  more  than  a  quarter  of  this  peculiar  material 
(113  vs.)  concerns  events  that  were  prior  to  the  public 
ministry  of  Jesus— namely,  the  birth  and  preaching  of 
John  the  Baptist,  the  birth  and  childhood  of  Jesus;  and  a 
little  less  than  one  quarter  of  it  (97  vs.)  consists  of 
parables.  Luke  has  eight2  parables  in  common  with  Mark 
and  Matthew  or  with  Matthew  alone,  aggregating  62 
verses,  and  has  thirteen3  as  his  own  peculiar  property. 
On  the  other  hand,  he  has  fourteen  miraculous  incidents 

%&1&"&¥n^i&^Vtp^J*  Leaven,  The  Lost 
Sheep,  The  Great  Supper,  The  Servants,  and  The  Minas. 

•The  Merciful  Samaritan,  The  Importunate  Friend,  The  Rich :  Fool, 
The  Fig  Tree,  The  Tower-Builder,  The  King,  The  Lost  Coin,  The  Lost  Son, 
The  Steward,  The  Rich  Man  and  Lazarus,  The  Judge,  The  Pharisee  and 
Publican,  and  The  Unprofitable  Servants. 


46  THE   SOURCES 

in  common  with  both  Mark  and  Matthew,  one  in  com- 
mon with  Mark  alone,  but  only  six1  such  incidents  pecu- 
liar to  his  own  narrative.  And  these  miraculous  inci- 
dents, with  one  exception  which  is  confined  to  a  single 
verse  (22:51),  do  not  depart  in  character  from  the  com- 
mon synoptic  type.  Thus  it  appears  that  Luke's  peculiar 
matter,  as  far  as  the  public  career  of  Jesus  is  concerned, 
consists  predominantly  of  teaching. 

With  this  general  survey  of  the  subject  we  will  now 
consider  some  details  as  indicating  the  author's  interests 
and  tendencies. 

He  informs  Theophilus  (1:3)  that  he  has  traced  the 
course  of  all  things  accurately  "from  the  first,"  and  this 
phrase  taken  in  the  light  of  the  first  two  chapters  of  his 
narrative  may  be  referred  to  the  origin  and  early  life  of 
Jesus  and  of  his  forerunner.  The  Gospel  of  Mark  which 
he  had  as  one  of  his  chief  sources  had  nothing  to  say  on 
these  origins  and  possibly  seemed  to  Luke  defective  on 
that  very  ground.  At  any  rate,  the  fact  that  he  devotes 
one-ninth  of  his  entire  narrative  to  the  birth  of  John  and 
Jesus,  with  three  events  belonging  to  the  infancy  and 
childhood  of  the  latter,  is  evidence  that  he  counted  these 
things  important  for  Theophilus. 

When  we  come  to  the  ministry  of  Jesus  and  survey 
Luke's  peculiar  material,  we  find  that  it  presents  incident 
after  incident  and  saying  after  saying  which  set  forth 
from  varying  points  of  view  the  broad  and  tender  sym- 
pathy of  Jesus.  The  author  seems  to  have  been  fasci- 
nated by  his  hero's  noble  humanity.  Thus  he  preserves 
a  parable  that  sets  the  tax-gatherer  above  the  proud 
Pharisee  (18:9-14)  and  records  how  Jesus  lodged  with 
a  chief  publican  (19:1-10).  On  his  pages  the  despised 
Samaritan  is  exalted.  He  appears  to  narrate  the  story 
of  the  cure  of  ten  lepers  for  the  sake  of  the  fact  that  the 
only  one  of  the  ten  who  returned  to  give  thanks  to  Jesus 
was  a  Samaritan  (11:11-19).  He  records  that  Jesus 
rebuked  his  disciples  because  they  were  disposed  to  de- 
stroy the  Samaritan  village  which  refused  entertainment 

1  Simon's  Catch  of  Fish,  The  Widow  of  Nain,  The  Deformed  Woman, 
Case  of  Dropsy,  Ten  Lepers,  The  Servant's  Ear. 


THE  SYNOPTIC   GOSPELS  47 

to  their  Master  (9:51-56),  and  he  preserves  the  great 
parable  in  which  a  Samaritan  is  held  up  as  an  example 
of  true  neighborliness  (10:29-37). 

A  unique  place  in  his  narrative  is  held  by  women,  an- 
other class  in  the  society  of  that  day  and  land  who  were 
not  given  the  honor  they  deserved.  It  is  Luke  who  tells 
us  that  certain  women  ministered  of  their  substance  to 
Jesus  and  the  Twelve  (8:1-13),  and  who  gives  us  the 
priceless  miniature  of  the  scene  in  the  home  of  Mary  and 
Martha  (10:38-42)  ;  Luke  who  records  the  enthusiastic 
salutation  of  a  woman  who  had  been  deeply  impressed 
by  the  words  of  Jesus  (11 :27-28),  and  Luke  who  rescued 
from  oblivion  two  parables  whose  chief  actor  is  a  woman 
(15:8-10;  18:1-8)  ;  finally,  it  is  Luke  who  sheds  a  ray  of 
light  on  the  procession  to  Golgotha  by  the  word  about 
those  women  who  followed  Jesus  with  lamentation  (23: 
27-29).  Other  details  in  Luke's  peculiar  material  which 
may  be  regarded  as  touches  helping  to  perfect  his  por- 
trayal of  the  humane  and  sympathetic  character  of  Jesus 
are  the  statement  that  he  wept  over  Jerusalem  (19  41) 
and  that  a  mere  look  from  him  melted  Peter's  obdurate 
heart  (22:61). 

We  cannot  doubt  that  Luke,  who  was  little  interested 
in  the  miraculous  element  in  the  stories  of  Jesus,  was  pro- 
foundly moved  by  what  he  learned  of  the  depth  and 
universality  of  the  Master's  sympathy.  Indeed,  it  ap- 
pears as  though  in  at  least  two  of  his  stories  of  miraculous 
help  Luke  was  impressed  not  by  the  miraculous  incident 
as  such  but  by  the  revelation  of  the  sympathetic  nature 
of  Jesus  which  it  afforded.  Thus,  in  his  portrayal  of 
what  occurred  near  the  town  of  Nain  (7:11-17)  n<p  tells 
us  that  the  woman  whose  son  was  being  carried  to  burial 
was  a  widow  and  that  it  was  her  only  son  who  lay  upon 
the  bier.  When  the  son  sat  up  and  began  to  speak, 
Luke  says  that  Jesus  "gave  him  to  his  mother/'  Appar- 
ently the  crown  of  the  story  for  him  was  that  it  revealed 
the  heart  of  Jesus.  So  in  the  story  of  the  deformed 
woman  (13:10-17)  Jesus  seems  to  have  been  moved  not 
by  any  request  but  by  clear  pity  for  one  who  had  long 
been  "bound  by  Satan." 


48  THE   SOURCES 

We  have  to  assume  that  Luke  in  gathering  and  testing 
the  material  which  is  peculiar  to  his  narrative  proceeded 
with  the  same  care  and  the  same  freedom  which  we  see 
illustrated  in  his  use  of  Mark's  Gospel  and  the  Logia. 
That  this  material  has  not  all  the  like  claim  to  acceptance 
is  obvious  from  a  comparison  of  it  with  the  Logia  and 
with  the  common  or  triple  tradition.  Every  part  of  it 
must  be  weighed  in  this  manner  in  order  to  determine 
its  intrinsic  value.  For  the  present,  where  we  are  con- 
sidering in  a  general  manner  Luke's  peculiar  material,  it 
is  needful  only  to  illustrate  the  statement  that  its  claim 
to  acceptance  is  not  uniform,  or,  in  other  words,  that  his 
sources  were  not  all  of  equal  historical  worth. 

Take  for  instance  the  story  of  the  boy  Jesus  in  the 
temple  at  twelve  years  of  age  (2:40-52)  and  the  story  of 
Zacchaeus  the  chief  publican  of  Jericho  (19:1-10).  In 
the  latter  there  is  not  even  a  detail  which  is  at  variance 
with  the  teaching  of  the  common  tradition  in  regard  to 
Jesus'  relation  toward  publicans  or  their  relation  to  him. 
And  the  words  that  Jesus  speaks  are  in  harmony  with 
the  Logia.  Thus  the  story  stands  the  documentary  test  of 
historicity.  Quite  different  is  it  with  the  story  of  the  boy 
Jesus  in  the  temple.  It  is  neither  intrinsically  probable 
nor  is  it  congruous  with  the  fundamental  documents.  It 
is  not  intrinsically  probable.  The  boy  who  was  already  full 
of  wisdom  and  on  whom  the  grace  of  God  rested  (2  40), 
the  boy  who  went  back  to  Nazareth  and  was  subject  to 
his  parents,  would  hardly  have  been  willing  to  cause  them 
two  days  of  needless  searching  and  anxiety.  Further,  it 
is  difficult  to  suppose  that  at  one  moment  Jesus  felt  that 
he  must  be  in  the  things  of  his  Father  and  the  next  left 
them  without  a  word  and  returned  to  Nazareth.  But, 
again,  the  story  is  not  congruous  with  the  fundamental 
documents,  and  that  in  two  points :  First,  the  portrait  of 
Jesus  as  contained  both  in  the  Logia  and  the  common 
tradition  of  the  synoptists  is  against  the  view  that  he  had 
ever  associated  the  "things  of  the  Father"  in  a  pre- 
eminent degree  with  hearing  the  doctors  and  asking  them 
questions ;  and  second,  the  synoptic  tradition,  which  dates 
from  the  baptism  of  Jesus  his  sense  of  standing  in  a 


THE  SYNOPTIC   GOSPELS  49 

unique  relation  to  the  Father,  is  against  this  word  of 
Luke  which  attributes  even  to  the  boy  of  twelve  years  a 
sense  of  unique  relationship  to  God. 

Or  take  as  a  second  illustration  the  two  Lucan  parables 
of  the  Lost  Son  and  the  Rich  Man  and  Lazarus  (16:19- 
31 ;  19:1-10).  The  teaching  of  the  former  is  felt  to  be  in 
vital  accord  with  the  purpose  of  the  whole  life  of  Jesus. 
In  portraying  the  father's  treatment  of  his  lost  child  Jesus 
portrayed  his  own  feeling  toward  publicans  and  sinners, 
which  he  believed  to  be  in  deepest  harmony  with  God's 
feeling  toward  them.  But  on  the  other  hand,  the  parable 
of  the  Rich  Man  and  Lazarus  is  not  congruous  with  the 
thought  of  Jesus  as  contained  in  the  common  tradition  and 
the  Logia.  It  departs  from  it  notably  in  two  points.  First, 
it  subordinates  character  to  outward  condition  as  a  factor 
determining  one's  future  state.  Lazarus,  because  he 
received  "evil  things"  on  earth,  that  is,  because  he  was  a 
beggar  and  full  of  sores,  came  at  last  to  "Abraham's 
bosom."  Not  a  word  is  said  of  his  character.  And  in 
the  case  of  the  rich  man,  nothing  is  said  of  his  selfish 
neglect  of  Lazarus.  It  seems  to  be  a  sufficient  reason 
why  he  reaps  anguish  beyond  the  grave  that  "in  his  life- 
time" he  had  received  his  "good  things."  But  this  is  a 
materialistic  Jewish1  conception  and  not  the  ethical  view 
of  Jesus,  who  in  all  his  teaching  laid  stress  on  the 
determinative  character  of  the  inner  and  spiritual  as 
against  the  outer  and  material. 

Second,  this  parable  seems  to  be  out  of  accord  with  the 
general  habit  of  Jesus  in  his  references  to  the  future,  for 
it  goes  into  much  detail,  while  the  manner  of  Jesus  as 
witnessed  elsewhere  was  one  of  great  reserve.  Thus  it 
is  here  only  that  we  find  the  figure  of  "Abraham's  bosom," 
here  only  the  word  "torments,"  here  only  "anguish"  and 
the  "flame,"  here  only  the  conception  of  two  compart- 
ments in  Hades,  here  only  the  "great  gulf"  (x^)  that 
cannot  be  passed,  here  only  that  the  spirits  of  departed 
men  are  represented  as  speaking,  and  here  only  that  there 
is  reference  to  the  witness  of  one  who  had  risen  from  the 
dead. 

1  See  Weber,  Judische  Theologie,  p.  322. 
4 


50  THE   SOURCES 

But  while,  as  these  illustrations  show,  Luke's  own 
peculiar  matter  has  not  all  the  like  claim  to  acceptance, 
yet  taken  as  a  whole  and  judged  in  the  light  of  the  Logia 
and  of  the  common  synoptic  tradition,  it  must  be  given 
a  place  among  our  most  valuable  sources  of  knowledge 
on  the  life  and  teaching  of  Jesus. 


CHAPTER  II 
THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL 

14.    Agreement  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  with  the  Synoptists. 

(a)  In  the  Narrative.  In  the  triple  tradition  of  the 
synoptists,  beginning  with  the  Baptist's  activity  and  con- 
tinuing up  to  the  triumphal  entry  into  Jerusalem,  there 
are  approximately  thirty-five  events  narrated.  Of  these 
the  Gospel  of  John  has  three,  namely,  the  activity  of  a 
forerunner  by  the  name  of  John,  the  return  of  Jesus  into 
Galilee  after  his  meeting  with  the  Baptist,  and  the  feeding 
of  five  thousand  people  on  the  east  side  of  the  lake  of 
Galilee.1  To  these  should  be  added  the  descent  of  the 
Dove  upon  Jesus  (1  132),  which  constitutes  a  part  of  one 
of  the  thirty-five  events.  In  the  double  tradition  of  Mat- 
thew and  Luke  we  may  count  seven2  incidents  belonging 
to  this  same  period,  and  of  these  John  has  one,  that  is, 
if  we  regard  his  story  of  a  king's  officer  (4:46-54)  as  a 
variant  form  of  the  synoptic  centurion  of  Capernaum. 
In  the  double  tradition  of  Mark  and  Matthew  there  are 
eight8  incidents,  of  which  John  has  one  (6:16-21).  The 
double  tradition  of  Mark  and  Luke  contains  three  inci- 
dents,4 all  wanting  in  John. 

In  the  single  tradition  of  the  various  synoptists  we 
count  approximately  fifteen5  incidents,  of  which  not  one 
is  found  in  John. 

•John's  preaching  to  the  multitude  (Mt.  3:1-12).  Sermon  on  the  Mount 
(Mt.  5-7),  the  Centurion  at  Capernaum  (Mt.  8:5-13).  Message  from  the 
Baptist  (Mt.  11:2-6),  Demand  for  Signs  (Mt.  12:38-42),  Woes  on  Galilean 
cities   (Mt.   11:20-24),  and  the  case  of  would-be  Disciples   (Mt.  8:19-22). 

•The  Call  of  Four  (Mk.  1:16-20),  Walking  on  the  Lake  (6:45-52),  Return 
to  Gennesaret  (6:53-56),  Washing  of  Hands  (7:1-23),  Canaamtish  Woman 
(7:24-30),  Journey  through  Tyre  and  Sidon  (7:31-37),  Feeding  4000 
(8:i-io),  and  Departure  from  Galilee   (10:1). 

•Day  in  Capernaum  (Mk.  1:21-28),  Flight  of  Jesus  (1:35-38),  and 
Unknown    Worker    (9:38-41).  _  ,__,  .     _„    , 

•Coin  in  Fish's  Mouth  (Mt.),  Attempt  by  Family  of  Jesus  (Mk.),  Blind 
Man  of  Bethsaida  (Mk.),  Simon's  Catch  (Lk.),  Ten  Lepers  (Lk.),  Deformed 

51 


52  THE    SOURCES 

When,  however,  we  pass  to  the  last  week  of  the  life  of 
Jesus  the  case  is  different.  Now,  instead  of  having  but 
little  of  the  synoptic  narrative,  John  has  the  larger  part 
of  it.  Out  of  some  twenty  events  common  to  the  story 
of  all  the  synoptists  John  has  thirteen.  If  we  omit  the 
five  controversies  with  the  leaders,1  which  might  be 
reckoned  with  the  teaching  sections  rather  than  with  the 
strictly  biographical  material,  then  all  but  two  of  the 
fifteen  synoptic  incidents  of  this  period  are  found  in  John. 

Thus  it  appears  that  of  the  entire  synoptic  narrative 
from  the  work  of  the  Baptist  to  the  triumphal  entry  of 
Jesus  into  Jerusalem  John  has  less  than  eight  per  cent, 
while  of  the  narrative  concerning  the  last  week  he  has 
about  eighty-six  per  cent. 

(b)  In  the  Teaching  of  Jesus.  Here  we  have  to  notice 
first  the  agreement  between  John  and  the  synoptists  as 
regards  form.  In  the  triple  tradition  of  the  synoptists 
there  are  approximately  180  verses  which  consist,  in 
whole  or  in  part,  of  words  of  Jesus.  Of  these  the  Gospel 
of  John  has  but  three  verses  (13:21,  38;  i8:37).2  The 
Logia  as  preserved  in  Matthew  and  Luke  contained  about 
200  verses,  and  of  these  John  has  one  (13:16;  15:20). 
Outside  these  two  fundamental  elements  of  the  synoptic 
Gospels  there  are  a  very  few  sayings  or  significant  terms 
which  we  meet  again  in  John.  Thus  Jesus  speaks  here 
to  Philip  (1:43),  as  to  certain  men  in  the  synoptists 
(e.g.,  Mk.  2:14),  saying,  "Follow  me."  Here,  as  in  the 
synoptists,  he  speaks  of  "seeing"  and  of  "entering"  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  (3:3,  5).  Here,  as  in  Mark  and 
Matthew,  we  have  the  proverbial  saying  about  a  prophet 
in  his  own  country  (4:44),  here  the  same  words  to  a  sick 
man  (5:8)  which  we  have  elsewhere,  "Arise,  take  up  thy 
bed  and  walk"  (e.g.,  Mk.  2:11).  As  in  Mark  and 
Matthew,  so  in  John  we  have  the  saying,  "For  the  poor 

Woman  (Lk.),  Dropsical  Man  (Lk.),  Woman's  Salutation  (Lk.),  Youth  of 
Nain  (Lk.),  Seventy  Disciples  (Lk.),  Departure  from  Perea  (?)  (Lk.), 
Samaritan  Village  (Lk.),  Ministering  Women  (Lk.),  Mary  and  Martha 
(Lk.),  Zacchaeus  (Lk.). 

1  Mk.    11:27;    12:13;    12:18;    12:28;    12:35. 

3  The  synoptic  word  about  "losing"  life  and  "finding"  it  (Mk.  8:35)  has 
a  substantial  parallel  in  John,  where  "loving"  and  "hating"  are  substituted 
for   "losing"   and   "finding"    (12:25). 


THE   FOURTH    GOSPEL  53 

ye  have  always  with  you,  but  me  ye  have  not  always" 
(12:8).  As  in  Matthew,  so  in  John  we  have  the  word, 
"He  that  receiveth  whomsoever  I  send  receiveth  me,  and 
he  that  receiveth  me  receiveth  him  that  sent  me"  (13 :2o). 
John  has  much  the  same  announcement  of  the  traitor 
(13:18)  as  have  Matthew  and  Mark,  and  essentially  the 
same  word  about  the  scattering  of  the  disciples  at  Jesus' 
death  (16:32). 

Thus  it  appears  that  of  the  words  of  Jesus  in  the  two 
fundamental  strata  of  the  synoptists  John  has  a  little 
more  than  one  per  cent,  and  of  other  sayings  of  Jesus  he 
has  less  than  a  dozen.  Yet  the  Gospel  of  John,  exclusive 
of  the  last  chapter,  has  about  404  verses  which  are 
ascribed  to  Jesus,  a  percentage  of  the  entire  Gospel  some- 
what larger  than  his  words  make  in  Luke's  Gospel. 
When  therefore  we  have  regard  to  the  form  of  the  teach- 
ing of  Jesus — that  is,  the  very  words  used — it  is  seen 
that  what  John  has  in  common  with  the  first  three  or 
with  any  one  or  two  of  them  is  very  slight. 

But,  secondly,  we  have  to  enquire  how  far  John  agrees 
with  the  synoptists  as  regards  the  content  of  the  Master's 
teaching.  Here  it  is  less  easy  to  speak  in  exact  terms, 
for  his  teaching  both  according  to  the  synoptists  and  John 
is  many-sided  and  profound,  but  nevertheless  some  ap- 
proximation to  the  truth  may  be  reached.  In  John  as  in 
the  synoptists  we  have,  then,  in  the  first  place,  the  father- 
hood of  God,  a  universal  fatherhood  of  love,1  and  we 
have  the  two  claims  of  Jesus  that  he  has  a  unique  knowl- 
edge of  the  Father2  and  that  he  is  the  Messiah  (4 126) . 
Also  in  what  Jesus  says  of  his  work  there  is  a  certain 
agreement  between  John  and  the  synoptists.  Thus,  it 
is  the  prerogative  of  the  Son,  according  to  John  (5:21; 
10:10),  to  give  life,  and  this — his  supreme  function — 
may  be  regarded  as  closely  akin  to  that  which  is  claimed 
in  the  synoptists,  namely,  that  he  can  give  a  perfect 
knowledge  of  the  Father  (Mt.  11:27).  Further,  as  in 
John  Jesus  is  himself  the  bread  of  life  (6:35),  so  in  the 
synoptists  the  bread  which  he  gives  to  his  disciples  on  the 

'E.g.,  4:21,  23;   10:29;  3:16. 
•7:29;    10:15. 


54  THE   SOURCES 

last  evening  in  some  way  represents  his  body  (e.g.,  Mk. 
14:22).  Again,  in  John  as  in  the  synoptists  Jesus  speaks 
of  his  life  as  being  in  some  respects  an  exemplar  to  his 
disciples.  He  washes  their  feet,  they  ought  to  wash  one 
another's  feet  (13:14-15);  he  came  to  serve,  they  too 
must  serve  (Mk.  10:44-45).  In  John,  as  in  the  synop- 
tists, Jesus  protests  against  the  profanation  of  the  temple,1 
and  according  to  both  sources  he  uttered  some  dark  say- 
ing about  the  temple's  overthrow.2  In  John,  as  in  the 
synoptists,  he  accuses  the  Jews  of  transgressing  the  Law  ;s 
in  both  he  lays  stress  on  doing  his  word  ;4  and  in  both  he 
warns  his  disciples  that  they  will  have  to  meet  persecu- 
tion, as  he  has.5  Finally,  in  John,  as  in  the  synoptists, 
Jesus  speaks  of  a  meeting  with  his  disciples  after  the 
impending  separation  by  death.0 

It  is  obvious  at  once  that  the  agreement  of  John  with 
the  synoptists  as  regards  the  content  of  the  teaching  of 
Jesus  is  far  more  extensive  than  the  agreement  as  to  the 
form  and  letter.  In  one  case  the  agreement  is  almost  a 
negligible  quantity,  in  the  other  it  is  broad  and  deep. 
But  so  far  we  have  touched  only  one  side  of  the  relation- 
ship of  these  writings  to  each  other,  and  that  not  the 
most  striking  or  most  important. 

15.    Departures  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  from  the  Synoptists. 

A  clear  and  comprehensive  survey  of  the  departures  of 
the  Fourth  Gospel  from  the  Synoptists  is  necessary  to  a 
true  judgment  of  this  great  work  and  of  its  author's  aim. 
In  presenting  this  feature  of  the  book  we  shall  notice 
briefly  nine  conspicuous  points. 

1.  John  the  Baptist.  According  to  the  synoptists, 
John  was  a  mighty  preacher  of  repentance,  and  announced 
one  greater  than  himself  who  was  soon  to  appear  in 
Israel.  He  baptized  Jesus,  but  later,  when  in  prison,  sent 
to  ask  whether  he  was  "the  coming  one"  (Mt.  11:3). 
Jesus,  while  recognizing  John  as  his  forerunner  and  con- 
fessing his  greatness,  said  that  he  was  less  than  the  least 

*Tohn  2:19;  Mk.  11:17.  «Tohn  13:17;  Mt.  7:24. 

2  Mt.   26:61;   27:40;   John  2:19.  *  Tohn    15:20;    16:2;   Mt   10:25,  28. 

•John   7:19;   Mt.  23:23-  eJohn  16:16,  22;  Mk.  14:28;  16:7. 


THE  FOURTH    GOSPEL  55 

in  the  kingdom  of  heaven — a  word  called  forth  by  John's 
failure  to  see  in  the  ministry  of  Jesus  the  fulfilment  of 
Israel's  hope. 

But  in  the  Gospel  of  John,  the  exclusive  mission  of  the 
Baptist  is  to  bear  witness  to  Jesus  ( i  -.7,  31 ) .  He  declares 
that  Jesus  was  "before"  him,  that  is  to  say,  pre-existed 
(1 115,  30)  ;  that  he  was  the  Son  of  God  (1 134)  ;  and  the 
Lamb  of  God  that  takes  away  the  sin  of  the  world  ( 1 129, 
36).  Jesus  is  represented  as  saying  that  John's  witness 
of  him  was  true  (5:32).  There  is,  accordingly,  no  room 
in  the  Fourth  Gospel  for  the  Baptist's  doubt  regarding 
the  Messiahship  of  Jesus,  which  is  reported  in  the  synop- 
tists,  nor  does  this  Gospel  allow  it  to  be  said  of  him  that 
he  was  less  than  the  least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  On 
the  contrary,  according  to  the  Fourth  Gospel,  he  has  in 
a  preeminent  degree  just  that  which  constitutes  one  a 
member  of  that  kingdom. 

2.  The  Descent  of  the  Spirit  upon  Jesus.  The  signifi- 
cance of  this  descent  of  the  Spirit  was  for  Jesus  himself, 
according  to  the  synoptists,  though  Matthew  allows  John 
the  Baptist  also  to  hear  the  heavenly  voice.  In  John,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  significance  of  the  event  was  primarily 
for  the  Baptist  (1 :3i-34),  being  a  sign  previously  given 
to  him  by  God  whereby  he  should  recognize  Jesus  as  the 
one  who  was  to  baptize  with  the  Spirit.  He  it  was  who 
saw  the  Spirit's  descent,  and  there  is  no  suggestion  in 
John's  narrative  that  the  event  was  of  critical  importance 
for  Jesus,  or,  even  that  Jesus  was  baptized  by  John. 

3.  The  Scene  of  Jesus'  Ministry.  The  Fourth  Gospel, 
like  the  synoptists,  represents  Jesus  as  returning  from 
the  interview  with  the  Baptist  into  Galilee  (1:43;  2:I)» 
but  from  this  point  forward  it  differs  from  them  in  its 
geographical  outline  of  the  Lord's  career.  For  in  the 
synoptists,  Galilee  is  the  field  to  which  Jesus  devotes 
himself  until  near  the  close  of  his  ministry  when  he  visits 
Perea,  and  afterward,  a  few  days  before  his  death,  goes 
to  Jerusalem.  They  have  no  clear  trace  of  any  second 
visit  in  the  capital  after  the  beginning  of  his  public  work.1 

1The  words  "how  often"  of  Mt.  23:37;  Lk.  13:34.  even  if  they  are 
words  of  Jesus  and  not  rather,   as   Schmiedel  thinks   (see   The  Johannme 


56  THE   SOURCES 

They  also  represent  Capernaum  as  the  center  of  the 
activity  of  Jesus,  the  place  where  he  was  "at  home" 
(e.g.,  Mk.  2:1).  But  according  to  John,  Jesus  abides 
only  a  few  days  in  Capernaum  on  his  first  visit  (2:12), 
and  his  second  visit  there,  which  is  also  the  last,  appears 
to  have  been  equally  short  (6:16-17;  7:1).  His  entire 
stay  in  Galilee  is  covered  by  three  passages,2  two  of  which 
are  brief  and  concerned  with  events  in  Cana,  which  is  not 
mentioned  in  the  synoptists.  On  the  other  hand,  Jerusa- 
lem is  now  the  proper  field  of  the  activity  of  Jesus,3  and 
the  temple  occupies  much  the  same  place  that  Capernaum 
has  in  the  synoptists  (e.g.,  18:20).  The  land  of  Judea  is 
visited  by  him,4  and  Samaria  as  well  (4:5-42),  though 
according  to  the  Synoptists  he  forbade  the  Twelve  to  go 
into  any  city  of  the  Samaritans  (Mt.  10:5)  and  said  of 
himself  on  another  occasion,  "I  was  not  sent  but  unto  the 
lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel"  (Mt.  15:24). 

It  is  doubtless  true  that  each  of  the  Gospel  narratives  is 
fragmentary,  and  it  is  conceivable  that  one  writer  should 
have  concerned  himself  especially  with  Galilean  incidents 
and  another  with  the  Judean,  but  in  that  case  their  nar- 
ratives ought  to  be  adjustable  one  to  the  other.  But 
John's  representation  of  the  scene  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus 
seems  to  exclude  that  of  the  synoptists.  It  leaves  no 
room  for  a  long  Galilean  ministry,  which  resulted  in  the 
popular  rejection  of  Jesus.  It  seems  impossible  to  regard 
it  as  supplementing  the  synoptists  in  regard  to  the  scene 
of  the  ministry  of  Jesus.  It  gives  us  not  a  supplement 
but  a  contrast.  Moreover,  the  geographical  dissonance  is 
closely  bound  up  with  other  dissonances,  and  cannot  be 
judged  apart  by  itself.  The  difficulty  in  removing  it  is 
increased  as  we  go  from  point  to  point  of  the  Johannine 
story. 

4.  The  Mighty  Works  of  Jesus.  The  ministry  of  Jesus, 
according  to  the  synoptists,  included  from  the  very  first 

Writings,  1908,  pp.  60-61),  a  quotation  from  the  Wisdom  of  Cod,  wrongly 
attributed  to  him,  modify  the  verb  i)di\ri<rtv  ;  but  the  uish  to  help  the  Jeru- 
salemites  does  not  necessarily  imply  the  presence  in  Jerusalem  of  the 
wisher. 

2  2:1-12;  4:43-54;  6:1-7:10. 

8  See  2:13-3:21;  5:1-47;  7:14-10:39;   12:12-20:29. 

*3-22\   7:1;    11:54. 


THE  FOURTH   GOSPEL  57 

some  attention  to  the  sick  and  especially  to  demoniacs. 
In  the  triple  tradition  twelve  mighty  works  are  described, 
of  which  nine  are  cures  of  disease.  In  the  same  source 
we  read  a  charge  of  the  scribes  that  Jesus  cast  out  demons 
by  Beelzebub  (Mk.  3:22) — an  admission  that  they  were 
indeed  cast  out  by  him,  and  we  read  also  that  Jesus,  on 
sending  out  the  Twelve,  gave  them  authority  over  unclean 
spirits  (Mk.  6:7).  We  may  say  then  that,  according  to 
the  synoptists,  the  typical  mighty  work  of  Jesus  was  the 
cure  of  the  sick.  But  in  John  the  "beginning  of  the 
signs"  of  Jesus  is  the  change  of  water  into  wine  (2:9). 
Six  other  signs  follow  and  all  are  remarkable  in  the 
highest  degree.  Three  sick  folk  are  healed — one  without 
visiting  him  (4:46),  another  who  had  been  lame  38 
years  (5:5),  and  the  third  a  man  who  was  born  blind 
(9:1).  The  remaining  miracles  are  the  feeding  of  the 
multitude  (6:5),  walking  on  the  sea  (6:19),  and  the 
raising  of  Lazarus  (11  43).  Thus  the  most  conspicuous 
synoptic  work  of  Jesus — the  casting  out  of  demons — does 
not  appear  at  all  in  John,  and  the  works  which  we  find 
there  are  uniformly  of  an  astounding  character. 

Furthermore,  the  prevailing  attitude  of  Jesus  toward 
"signs"  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  radically  different  from 
his  attitude  toward  works  of  healing  in  the  synoptists. 
When  the  Jews  ask,  "What  sign  showest  thou  unto  us?" 
(2:18)  Jesus  does  not  rebuke  them  and  declare  that  no 
sign  shall  be  given,  as  he  does  on  a  similar  occasion  in 
the  synoptists.1  From  the  author's  point  of  view  Jesus 
could  not  well  refuse  signs  since  by  them  he  "manifested 
his  glory"  (2:11)  and  through  them  the  disciples  were 
led  to  believe  on  him  (20:31).  This  different  attitude  of 
Jesus  toward  signs  is  seen  clearly  in  the  case  of  the  man 
who  was  born  blind  and  in  the  case  of  Lazarus.  In  the 
former,  the  miracle  illustrated  the  word  which  Jesus  had 
just  spoken,  "I  am  the  light  of  the  world"  (9:5),  and  in 
the  latter  it  is  a  symbolic  utterance  of  the  truth  of  the 
Master's  word,  "I  am  the  resurrection  and  the  life" 
(11:25).  Of  this  significant  conception  of  miracles  the 
synoptists  have  no  trace. 

*See  Mt.  12:39;  Mk.  8:12;  Lk.  11:29. 


58  THE   SOURCES 

Again,  it  is  to  be  noted  that,  in  the  synoptists,  the 
mighty  works  of  Jesus  are  habitually  wrought  at  the  solic- 
itation of  the  suffering,1  they  show  the  compassion  of 
Jesus,2  and  are  evidence  of  the  presence  of  the  kingdom 
of  God;3  but  in  John  Jesus  habitually  proceeds  on  his 
own  initiative  in  working  miracles,4  and  they  are,  for  the 
author,  a  manifestation  of  the  glorious  nature  of  Jesus 
(i  114;  17:24),  a  supreme  proof  that  he  is  the  Son  of  God 
(20:31). 

5.  The  Mutual  Relation  of  Jesus  and  his  People.  In 
the  synoptists  Jesus  is  confronted  by  several  classes  of 
varying  social  and  official  rank.  From  early  in  the  Gali- 
lean ministry  (Mk.  2 :6)  he  is  watched  by  scribes  and  asso- 
ciates with  publicans  and  "sinners."  And  his  relations 
with  these  classes  are  sometimes  of  great  importance  for 
the  course  of  his  work.  But  in  John  the  scribes  do  not 
once  appear,  neither  do  publicans  and  "sinners."  Again, 
in  the  synoptists,  but  especially  in  Mark,  there  is  a  clearly 
traceable  development  both  of  faith  in  Jesus  and  of  hos- 
tility toward  him ;  but  in  John  both  forms  of  development 
are  wanting.  The  earliest  disciples  here  recognize  Jesus 
as  the  Messiah  at  their  first  meeting  (1:41)  and  even  the 
Baptist  has  full  insight  into  his  character  and  mission 
(1:29).  Furthermore,  hostility  toward  him  appears  as 
soon  as  he  comes  forward  publicly  (2  :i8).  This  hostility 
is  shown  not  by  Pharisees  and  Herodians,  as  in  the  synop- 
tists, but  by  the  "Jews" — a  term  which  occurs  more  than 
sixty  times  in  John.  This  is  found  in  the  synoptists  also, 
but  never  as  a  designation  of  the  enemies  of  Jesus  (e.g., 
Mk.  7:3). 

Now  both  the  disappearance  of  such  concrete  facts  as 
the  scribes,  the  publicans  and  the  "sinners,"  and  on  the 
other  hand  the  emergence  of  the  thought  of  national 
opposition  call  attention  to  the  marked  change  of  atmos- 
phere which  is  found  as  one  passes  from  the  synoptists 
into  John. 

1  See,  e.g.,  Mk.   1:31,  32,  40;  2:3;  5:23;  7:26,  32;  8:22;  9:17,  etc. 

2  Mk.  8:2;  Mt.  14:14;  15:32;  20:34. 
8  E.g.,  Lk.   1 1  -.20. 

*  See  2:7;  5:6;  6:5;  9:6;  11:3,  34. 


THE   FOURTH   GOSPEL 


59 


6.  The  Teaching  of  Jesus.  A  word  only  in  regard  to 
the  obvious  literary  difference  between  the  synoptic  and 
the  Johannine  teaching  of  Jesus.  According  to  the 
synoptists  Jesus  loved  to  speak  in  parables,  and  it  is  in  this 
form  that  his  thought  of  God  and  the  heavenly  kingdom 
is  most  fully  set  forth,  but  in  John  there  is  no  parable,  the 
passages  about  the  Door  and  the  Sheep  Fold,  the  Branch 
and  the  Vine,  being  of  the  nature  of  allegory.  Again, 
according  to  the  synoptists  the  sayings  of  Jesus  are  terse, 
epigrammatic  and  pictorial,  and  are  clearly  distinct  from 
the  accompanying  narrative ;  but  in  John  the  literary  style 
of  Jesus  is  not  different  from  that  of  the  writer,  and 
instead  of  the  short,  vigorous  and  often  paradoxical  say- 
ings of  the  synoptists  with  a  background  of  nature  and 
human  life  we  have  long,  repetitious  discourses  with  a 
philosophical  background. 

But  when  we  go  deeper,  into  the  teaching  itself,  John's 
departure  from  the  synoptists  is  no  less  remarkable.  Thus 
the  Kingdom  of  God,  which  has  been  called  the  theme  of 
Jesus'  teaching  according  to  the  synoptists,  appears  in 
John  on  but  two  occasions  and  one  of  these  was  private 
(3 :3»  5  't  *8  .'36).  Life,  on  the  other  hand,  and  eternal  life 
are  nearly  as  conspicuous  in  John1  as  is  the  Kingdom  of 
God  in  the  synoptists.  In  the  synoptists  Jesus  speaks  of 
men  as  sons  of  God,2  and  on  a  single  occasion  speaks  of 
himself  as  son  in  a  unique  sense  (Mt.  n  :2j)  ;  but  in  John 
men  are  never  called  sons  of  God  but  "children"  (e.g., 
1:12;  11:52),  and  Jesus  speaks  of  himself  as  Son  in  a 
unique  sense  more  than  a  score  of  times.3  In  the  synop- 
tists Jesus  does  not  publicly  claim  Messiahship  until  the 
day  of  his  death  (Mk.  14:62),  and  even  then  not  on  his 
own  initiative;  but  in  John  he  explicitly  declares  his 
Messiahship  to  the  woman  at  the  well  (4:26)  and  to  the 
man  born  blind  (9:35-38),  and  on  another  occasion  when 
the  Jews  demand  a  plain  answer  to  the  question  whether 
he  is  the  Christ,  he  replies  that  he  has  told  them 
(10:24-25). 

,See,  e.g.,  1:4;  3:15;  4:14;  5^45  6:27;  8:12;  10:10,  etc. 


,See,  e.g.,  1:4;  3:15;  4:14;  5^4;  6:27;  8:12;  10:10, 

'See,  e.g.,  Matt.  5:9,  45 J  Lk.  20:36. 

•See,  e.g.,  1:18,  34,  49;  3:16;  5:20;  6:62;  8:28,  etc 


60  THE   SOURCES 

Another  point  of  deep  significance  is  that  of  Jesus  in 
prayer.  Here  we  refer  especially  to  his  own  example. 
That  Jesus  was  in  the  habit  of  praying  is  well  attested  in 
the  synoptists,1  but  in  John  there  is  not  only  no  instance 
of  Jesus'  retiring  into  solitude  for  prayer,  but  the  religious 
term  for  praying  ( 7iyxxr<vx«7&u  ) ,  which  all  the  synoptists 
employ,  is  not  found  in  his  Gospel.  Here  Jesus  "asks"  or 
"requests"  the  Father  (cutcu',  ipwrav),  as  one  person 
asks  another.  How  different  this  Johannine  "asking"  is 
from  real  prayer  appears  from  two  of  the  three  instances 
when  Jesus,  in  John's  narrative,  spoke  to  the  Father.  At 
the  tomb  of  Lazarus,  after  the  words,  "Father,  I  thank 
thee  that  thou  heardest  me,"  he  adds  that  he  spoke  thus 
"because  of  the  multitude"  (u  -.41-42),  and  on  the  occa- 
sion of  the  visit  of  certain  Greeks,  when  he  had  said, 
"Father,  glorify  thy  name,"  and  when  a  voice  had  come 
out  of  heaven  in  response,  he  said  of  it,  "This  voice  hath 
not  come  for  my  sake,  but  for  your  sakes"  (12:27-30). 
Thus  it  would  seem  that,  in  the  opinion  of  the  writer, 
Jesus  had  no  need  of  prayer  in  the  synoptic  sense,  and 
hence  of  course  no  need  of  answers  from  the  Father. 

It  may  be  noticed  in  this  connection  that  the  author  of 
the  fourth  Gospel  seems  to  neutralize  the  most  conspic- 
uous synoptic  narrative  of  Jesus  in  prayer.  Jesus  prayed 
in  the  garden  that  a  certain  "cup" — presumably  the  cruel 
death  that  awaited  him  on  the  morrow — might  pass  from 
him  (Mk.  14:36),  but  in  John,  when  Jesus  was  consider- 
ing his  approaching  fate,  he  asked  in  deep  trouble  of  soul, 
"What  shall  I  say?"  (12:27-28).  Then,  recognizing  that 
he  had  come  "unto  this  hour"  for  "this  cause,"  that  is, 
that  he  might  experience  what  it  had  in  store  for  him,  he 
said,  "Father,  glorify  thy  name."  The  situation  is  essen- 
tially the  same  that  we  have  in  the  synoptists,  but  Jesus 
is  represented  as  refusing  to  ask  for  deliverance  from  the 
"hour."2 

Again,  in  the  synoptists  the  universalism  of  Jesus  is 
implicit,  in  John  it  is  explicit.     In  the  synoptic  narrative 

1  E.g.,  Mk.  1:35;  6:46;  14:32. 

■  Even  if  wc  take  the  words:  "Father,  save  me  from  this  hour,'  as  a 
prayer  rather  than  as  a  part  of  his  question,  the  very  next  words  recall  the 
prayer,  and  the  contrast  with  the  synoptic  scene  remains  altogether  striking. 


THE   FOURTH   GOSPEL  6l 

he  is  represented  as  averse  to  answering  the  prayer  of  the 
Syro- Phoenician  woman  (Mk.  7:27),  but  in  John  the 
coming  to  him  of  certain  foreigners  brings  exalted  joy 
(12:20-23).  From  the  conversation  with  Nicodemus 
forward  the  references  of  Jesus  to  his  relation  to  man- 
kind in  its  entirety  are  so  numerous1  as  to  constitute  a 
conspicuous  feature  of  the  narrative. 

Finally,  in  the  synoptists  Jesus  says  but  little  of  the 
Spirit,  and  that  little  is  not  different  from  what  is  said  in 
the  prophets.  The  Spirit  of  God  is  God  as  present  in 
human  hearts  and  lives.  In  John,  on  the  other  hand, 
Jesus  not  only  says  much  of  the  Spirit,  but  what  he  says 
is  not  essentially  what  was  said  by  the  prophets :  it  is 
something  new.  The  Spirit  is  treated  as  personally  dis- 
tinct from  God.  In  a  sense,  the  Spirit  is  subordinate  to 
Jesus  (15  126;  14:26),  which  is  the  reverse  of  the  relation- 
ship suggested  in  the  synoptists  (Lk.  12:10). 

7.  Chronology.  It  may  be  doubted  whether  the 
synoptists  wished  to  indicate  the  length  of  the  Master's 
public  life,  but  if  we  infer  anything  from  their  narrative 
on  this  point  it  must  be  that  it  favors  a  ministry  of  about 
one  year.  They  speak  of  only  one  Passover  (Mk.  14:1). 
John,  on  the  other  hand,  seems  to  give  a  chronological  out- 
line of  the  ministry  of  Jesus,  and  this  outline  includes 
three2  Passovers,  thus  giving  the  ministry  a  duration  of 
about  two  years. 

John  puts  the  cleansing  of  the  temple  at  the  beginning 
of  Jesus'  ministry  (2:13-22),  the  synoptists  put  it  in  the 
last  week  of  his  life  (Mk.  11  :i5-i7).  Peter's  confession, 
according  to  the  synoptists,  was  in  the  region  of  Caesarea 
Philippi  (Mk.  8:27,  29),  and  was  the  confession  of  a 
faith  hitherto  unuttered ;  but  in  John  Peter  makes  a  con- 
fession in  Capernaum,  before  the  day  at  Caesarea  Philippi, 
and  this  confession  renders  the  synoptic  one  impossible 
(6:66-71).  According  to  the  synoptists  Jesus  was 
anointed  in  Bethany  two  days  before  the  last  Passover 
(Mk.  14:1-9),  but  yi  John  there  is  an  anointing  in  Beth- 
any which  must  probably  be  identified  with  that  of  the 

•See,  e.g.,  3:16-21;  5:22-23,  25,  28;  6:33;  8:12;  12:17;   17:21,  23. 
'2:13;  6:4;  u:  1. 


62  THE   SOURCES 

synoptists  and  it  is  six  days  before  the  Passover  of  the 
last  week  (12:1).  Finally,  the  crucifixion  occurred,  ac- 
cording to  the  synoptists,  on  the  15th  of  the  month 
Nisan  (Mk.  14:12),  the  third  hour  (Mk.  15:25),  but  in 
John  on  the  14th,1  at  about  the  sixth  hour  (19:14). 

The  data  which  have  now  been  presented,  both  those 
that  show  the  agreement  of  John  with  the  synoptists  and 
those  that  show  his  departure  from  them,  though  they 
furnish  good  ground  for  a  conclusion  in  regard  to  the 
historical  character  of  John's  Gospel,  are  not  all  the  evi- 
dence that  must  be  taken  into  account.  The  most  im- 
portant material  of  all,  and  that  which  has  been  too  little 
considered,  will  be  presented  in  the  next  section. 

16.     The  Greek  Element  in  John. 

A  Greek  element  is  not  only  manifest  in  the  introduc- 
tion of  John's  Gospel  but  it  is  manifest  as  of  fundamental 
significance  for  the  entire  course  of  the  narrative  about 
Jesus.  The  term  Logos  is  indeed  confined  to  the  first 
fourteen  verses,  but  the  conception  colors  the  author's 
thought  of  Jesus  and  of  his  work  throughout.  The  state- 
ment that  the  Logos  became  flesh  (1  :i4)  (i.e.,  in  Jesus) 
gives  the  reader  the  point  of  view  from  which  everything 
in  the  subsequent  chapters  is  to  be  regarded.  That  is  the 
author's  evident  purpose.  He  did  not  regard  the  Logos 
and  its  relation  to  Jesus  as  a  mere  hypothesis,  but  as  a 
great  and  unquestionable  verity.  Therefore  he  makes 
the  incarnation  of  the  Logos  in  Jesus  the  starting-point 
and  foundation  of  his  Gospel. 

The  author  in  his  general  description  of  the  Logos 
betrays  the  source  whence  his  conception  was  drawn. 
He  affirms  that  the  Logos  had  existed  from  the  begin- 
ning and  had  existed  in  a  relation  of  fellowship  with  God 
(1:1).  He  affirms  that  the  Logos  was  0«os,  not  cO0cds. 
Thus  while  he  identifies  him  with  God  he  also  discrim- 
inates, in  some  sense,  between  the  two.  Then  he  con- 
nects him  with  the  universe  and  with  history  by  the 
statements  that  he  was  the  agent  in  universal  creation, 
the  source  of  life  and  light  to  mankind  (1 13,  4)  ;  that  he 

1  See  13:1,  29;   18:28. 


THE   FOURTH    GOSPEL  63 

came  to  his  own,  though  not  welcomed  by  them,  and  that 
in  the  author's  own  day  he  became  flesh  (i  :n,  14). 

This  conception  of  the  Logos  isjiot  Hebrew  and  it  is 
not  purely  Greek.  It  is  Greek  as  modified  by  the  his- 
torical appearance  of  Jesus.  It  is  not  Hebrew:  it  has  no 
living  root  in  the  Old  Testament.  The  utmost  that  can 
be  said  is  that  certain  Old  Testament  expressions — "word 
of  God,"  "Spirit  of  God,"  and  "wisdom"— are  more  or 
less  parallel  to  it,  and  so  made  its  introduction  into  Chris- 
tian thought  possible  and  easy. 

The  "word  of  God"  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  is  a 
symbol  of  his  participation  in  human  affairs.1  Like  his 
"breath"  and  his  "hand"  it  brings  him  near,  into  actual 
contact  with  the  world  and  with  men.  The  conception 
of  the  L^QgDs,  on  the  other  hand,  removes  God  from  such 
contact,  for  the  Logos  is  an  intermediary  between  God 
and  his  world.  Again,  the  "Spirit  of  God"  in  the  Old 
Testament  is  God  in  his  most  intimate  approach  to  his 
spiritual  creatures :  it  is  not  personally  distinct  from  him. 
Functions  are  attributed  to  the  Spirit  (e.g.,  Gen.  1 :2) 
which  resemble  those  attributed  to  the  Logos  in  John 
and  in  Greek  philosophy,  but  nevertheless  the  two  con- 
ceptions are  by  no  means  the  same.  From  the  Old 
Testament  point  of  view,  since  the  Spirit  is  not  personally 
distinct  from  God,  it  is  inconceivable  that  it  should 
become  flesh,  as  the  Logos  does  in  John.  And  again,  the 
conception  of  the  Spirit  in  the  Old  Testament  serves  to 
make  the  nearness  of  God  felt,  while  the  Logos  doctrine 
in  the  Greek  philosophers  and  Philo  rather  emphasizes 
the  apartness,  the  transcendence,  of  God. 

Finally,  the  conception  of  Wisdom  which  we  find  in 
Proverbs  and  in  Sirach  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  living 
root  of  the  Logos  doctrine.  For  although  wisdom  is,  in 
part,  described  in  terms  which  remind  us  of  the  Logos 
(e.g.,  Prov.  8:30-31),  it  is  nevertheless  itself  a  work  of 
God  (Prov.  8:22),  not  his  agent  in  creation. 

It  seems  futile  therefore  to  try  to  derive  the  doctrine 
of  the  Logos  from  the  Old  Testament.  It  is  rather 
opposed  to  the  Old  Testament  conception  of  God,  for 

1  See,  e.g.,  Ps.  33:6;  107:20,  etc. 


64  THE   SOURCES 

the  Old  Testament  is  monotheistic,  but  the  doctrine  of  the 
Logos  brings  in  a  second  Divine  Being. 

But  when  we  turn  from  the  Old  Testament  to  Philo 
we  come  into  a  sphere  of  thought  that  is  truly  akin  to  that 
of  John's  Prologue.  To  Philo  as  to  John  the  Logos  is 
eternal.1  In  Philo  as  in  John  the  Logos  is  called  "God- 
like" (?)  in  distinction  from  God  (0«k,  not  60eo«).2 
In  Philo  as  in  John  the  Logos  is  the  agent  in  universal 
creation. s  In  Philo  as  in  John  the  Logos  stands  in  an 
intimate  relation  to  man,  for  it  is  man's  archetype  even 
as  God  is  its  own  archetype,  and  in  general  it  is  the 
mediator  between  God  and  man.4  Finally,  in  Philo  as 
in  John  the  Logos  seems  to  be  thought  of,  at  times,  as  a 
personal  being,  as,  for  example,  when  it  is  called  "high 
priest,"  "ambassador"  between  God  and  the  cosmos,  and 
"archangel  of  many  names."5 

This  agreement  between  Philo  and  John  is  so  broad 
and  deep  that  we  cannot  reasonably  deny  a  determinative 
influence  of  the  earlier  writer  upon  the  later,  though  we 
need  not  suppose  that  this  influence  was  exercised  through 
books. 

There  are  indeed  differences  between  John's  Logos 
conception  and  that  of  Philo,  nor  are  these  to  be  under- 
valued. Thus,  the  cloud  of  uncertainty  resting  on  the 
personality  of  the  Logos  in  Philo  does  not  pertain  to  the 
Logos  of  John.  Again,  in  John,  but  not  clearly  in  Philo, 
the  function  of  the  Logos  culminates  in  his  religious 
service  for  men,  for  he  brings  them  into  the  estate  of 
children  of  God  (1:11-12).  Finally,  the  difference  be- 
tween Philo  and  John  is  seen  in  this,  that  John's  doctrine 
has  a  supreme  historical  illustration.0  It  is  a  creed  of 
flesh  and  blood.  In  these  respects  John's  conception  is 
unlike  Philo's,  but  the  differences  constitute  a  develop- 

1  See  Confus.  ling.  28:  Plant.  Noe  2  and  5. 

2  Sec  Leg.  all.  3:73;  Somn.   1:29,  41. 

s  See  Quod  deus  int.  12;  Vita  Mosis  3:14;  Cherub.  35;  Monorchia  2:5; 
De  Cain,  et  Ab.  3. 

4  See  Mundi  op.  51;  Spec.  leg.  3:27,  4:4;  Plant  Noe  S',De  Prof.   19. 

6  See  Confus.  ling.  28;  Leg.  all.  3:25-26;  Cherub.  5;  Somn.  1:37,  40-41; 
Quis  rer.  div.  hcrcs  42;  Gigant.  1 1  •  Migrat.  Abrah.  18. 

•  Scott,  The  Fourth  Gospel,  its  Purpose  and  Theology,  1906,  p.  155,  holds 
that  in  Philo  the  Logos  has  more  the  force  of  reason  and  in  John  the  force 
of  word. 


THE   FOURTH   GOSPEL  65 

ment  rather  than  an  essential  contrast.  They  are  such  as 
follozvcd  necessarily  from  the  identification  of  the  Logos 
with  the  historical  Jesus. 

Now  since  the  Logos  doctrine  is  essentially  Greek, 
whatever  we  find  in  the  Gospel  of  John  that  departs  from 
the  synoptic  tradition  and  at  the  same  time  obviously 
stands  in  close  relation  to  this  doctrine  as  it  is  set  forth 
in  the  prologue,  must  be  regarded  as  a  Greek  modifica- 
tion of  the  primitive  teaching.  The  following  features 
of  the  Gospel  present  themselves  here  for  consideration. 

I.  John  the  Baptist.  According  to  the  synoptists  the 
Baptist  announced  that  one  was  to  come  after  him  who 
was  mightier  than  he ;  in  John's  Gospel  the  Baptist  says 
that  the  one  coming  after  him  was  before  him,  and  does 
this  in  a  manner  to  suggest  something  mysterious  in  the 
prior  existence  of  Jesus  (1:15,  30).  This  language  is 
obviously  explained  by  the  statement  in  the  Prologue 
that  the  Logos  was  "in  the  beginning."  The  author 
clearly  modifies  the  synoptic  representation  to  bring  it 
into  harmony  with  his  new  point  of  view.  The  doctrine 
that  fills  his  own  soul  he  imputes  to  the  great  forerunner 
of  Jesus. 

Again,  when  the  Baptist,  on  recognizing  Jesus  as  the 
one  of  whom  he  had  witnessed  to  his  disciples  (1:29), 
puts  him  at  once  in  relation  to  the  entire  world  as  the 
bearer  of  sin,  we  are  constrained  to  see  the  influence  of 
the  Logos  doctrine  of  the  author.  For,  according  to  the 
synoptists,  Jesus  said  of  John  that,  though  he  was  equal 
to  any  prophet,  he  was  less  than  the  least  in  the  kingdom 
of  God  (  Mt.  1 1 : 1 1 ) .  But  how  could  Jesus  have  said  that 
if  John,  far  in  advance  of  his  own  disciples,  had  recog- 
nized and  declared  the  universal  spiritual  character  of  his 
ministry?  This  man  was  surely  not  the  least  in  the  king- 
dom of  God,  nor  was  he  the  same  one  who  from  the 
prison  sent  to  Jesus  to  ask  whether  he  was  the  "coming 
one."  This  is  clearly  the  John  of  the  Prologue  (1:7,  15), 
and  what  he  says  is  required  by  the  Prologue's  identifica- 
tion of  the  Logos  with  Jesus.  For  the  Logros  is  there  said 
to  be  the  source  of  life  and  light  for  mankind  (1:4),  n°t 
simply  for  an  elect  people. 
5 


66  THE   SOURCES 

2.  The  Knozvledge  of  Christ,  (a)  Extent.  Since 
the  Logos  was  thought  of  by  the  author  as  incarnate  in 
Jesus,  we  expect  Jesus  to  exhibit  the  same  degree  of 
knowledge  that  the  Logos  had  possessed.  The  Logos  as 
the  eternal  companion  of  God  (1:1,  irpos  rov  0e6v)  and 
the  agent  in  universal  creation  must  have  a  knowledge 
immeasurably  transcending  that  of  man,  and  such,  accord- 
ing to  this  Gospel,  was  indeed  the  knowledge  of  the  his- 
torical Jesus.  When  first  he  met  Simon,  he  gave  his 
father's  name,  and  foreseeing  what  Simon  would  become, 
gave  to  him  the  name  Cephas  (i  142).  When  Nathanael 
was  brought  to  him,  he  not  only  read  his  character  but 
announced  that  he  had  seen  him  beneath  the  fig-tree — an 
announcement  which  convinced  Nathanael  that  he  was 
the  Son  of  God  (1:45-51).  He  told  the  Samaritan 
woman  that  she  had  had  five  husbands  (4:18),  and  when 
far  away  across  the  Jordan,  in  Perea,  he  was  aware  of 
what  transpired  in  the  home  of  Lazarus  in  Bethany 
(11:14).  The  author  of  the  Gospel  declares  compre- 
hensively, that  Jesus  knew  what  was  in  man  (2:25). 
When  Jesus  asked  Philip  whence  they  were  to  secure 
bread  for  the  multitude,  he  did  it  to  prove  him,  for  he 
himself  knew  what  he  would  do  (6:6).  In  like  manner 
he  knew  from  "the  beginning"  who  they  were  who  be- 
lieved not,  and  who  it  was  that  should  betray  him  (6:64). 
The  apostles  are  represented  as  confessing:  "Now  know 
we  that  thou  knowest  all  things"  (16:30),  and  in  the 
Appendix  Peter  makes  the  same  confession  (21:17). 

Thus  the  Jesus  who,  according  to  the  synoptists,  de- 
clared that  he  did  not  know  the  day  or  the  hour  of  his 
own  coming  in  glory  (Mk.  13:32),  he  who  was  deceived 
by  the  appearance  of  a  certain  fig-tree  (Mk.  11 113),  who 
asked  questions  for  information  as  other  men  did,1  and 
who  in  Gethsemane  prayed  that  a  certain  cup  might  pass 
from  him  (Mk.  14:36) — a  prayer  which,  like  every  other 
real  prayer  for  a  specific  boon,  implied  ignorance  of  the 
Father's  will — this  Jesus  is  here,  in  John,  clothed  with 
seeming  omniscience,  but  surely  with  a  knowledge  indefi- 
nitely surpassing  that  of  man.     To  what  is  this  trans- 

JSce,  e.g.,  Mk.  8:5,  27;  9:16,  21. 


THE  FOURTH   GOSPEL  6? 

formation  to  be  attributed?  We  need  not  look  beyond 
the  Logos-doctrine  of  the  author.  What  the  Logos 
knew.  Jesus  knew,  for  Jesus  was  the  incarnate  Logos. 
This  conclusion  receives  confirmation  from  the  following 
paragraph. 

(b)  Acquisition.  The  knowledge  of  Jesus,  according 
to  John,  was  not  only  supernatural  in  extent,  but  it 
dated  from  a  preexistent  state.  Jesus  said  he  could  tell 
Nicodemus  "heavenly  things"  because  he  himself  had 
descended  out  of  heaven  (3:12-13).  He  knew  God  be- 
cause he  was  from  him  (6:46;  7:29),  and  he  declared  his 
witness  to  be  true  because  he  knew  whence  he  came  and 
whither  he  went  (8:14).  He  spoke  those  things  which 
the  Father  had  taught  him  or  which  he  had  heard  from 
him   (8 126,  28)  ;  he  bore  witness  to  what  he  had  seen 

(3="). 

Now  this  thought  which  is  attributed  to  Jesus  in  the 
Gospel  of  John — that  his  teaching  was  in  words  that  he 
had  heard  with  the  Father,  that  his  knowledge  of  God 
was  conditioned  on  his  having  come  forth  from  God — 
this  same  thought  is  also  found  in  the  author's  own  sum- 
mary declaration  at  the  beginning  of  his  narrative,  "the 
only-begotten  Son  who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  he 
hath  declared  him"  (1  :i8),  and  it  is  implied  in  his  funda- 
mental proposition  that  the  Logos  became  flesh  in  Jesus 
(1:14).  The  synoptists,  however,  make  no  allusion  to 
this  heavenly  state  and  heavenly  tuition.  In  them,  the 
Old  Testament  is  the  background  of  Jesus'  thought,  and 
there  is  no  suggestion  that  his  knowledge  of  God  had 
been  acquired  in  any  extraordinary  way. 

3.  The  Nature  of  Jesus.  We  find  in  John  both  the 
early  conception  of  Jesus  as  a  man  clothed  with  the 
Messianic  office  and  also  a  new  transcendental  element. 
He  is  the  Son  of  Man,  that  is,  the  Messiah  (e.g.,  6:53), 
as  in  the  synoptists,  but  he  is  the  Son  of  Man  who  has 
come  down  from  heaven  (3:13),  and  who  is  to  ascend 
where  he  was  before  (6:62).  Again,  he  is  the  Christ, 
the  King  of  Israel,  the  Son  of  God,  even  he  that  was  to 
come,1  which  is  no  more  than  the  synoptists  also  assert,2 

1  Sec  1:49;  11:27;  20:31.  3See,  e.g.,  Mk.  14:61,  62;  1:11;  9:7. 


68  THE   SOURCES 

but  now  the  "coming"  is  no  longer,  as  in  the  synoptists,1 
a  simple  equivalent  for  a  man's  appearance  on  the  stage 
of  history,  but  it  is  a  coming  from  another  world  into 
this  (e.g.,  16:28).  The  "Son"  is  uniquely  begotten  of 
God,2  and  not  in  the  same  manner  in  which  the  "children" 
of  God  are  begotten  of  him  (1  113,  3:3).  Therefore  the 
union  of  the  Son  with  the  Father  is  more  than  moral 
harmony,  though  it  is  certainly  this  (17:11)  :  it  also  rises 
into  what  we  of  the  present  call  the  sphere  of  essential 
being.  Hence  it  is  the  Son,  according  to  this  Gospel, 
and  only  the  Son,  who  glorifies  the  Father,  and  whom 
the  Father  will  glorify  with  himself.8 

There  are  other  data  in  John  that  throw  light  on  the 
transcendental  element  in  the  nature  of  Jesus.  Thus  the 
statement  that  the  Son  has  life  in  himself,  as  has  the 
Father  (5:26),  from  which  it  follows  that  he  can  lay 
down  his  life  and  take  it  again  (10:18),  and  that  he  can 
bestow  life  on  whom  he  will  (5:21 ;  6:44),  implies,  as  does 
the  term  "only-begotten,"  a  unique  metaphysical  relation 
to  God.  Again,  it  seems  not  improbable  that  the  author 
thought  of  Jesus  as  able  at  will  to  become  invisible,  for 
twice,  while  still  in  the  midst  of  his  enemies,  he  is  "hid- 
den" from  them  (8:59;  12:36).  Last  of  all,  we  must  note 
in  this  connection  the  significant  omissions  of  the  Johan- 
nine  narrative.  The  baptism,  the  temptation,  the  agony 
in  the  garden  are  all  wanting  here,  as  is  also  the  entire 
element  of  supplication  in  Jesus'  communion  with  the 
Father.  It  is  obvious,  with  a  little  thought,  that  each  of 
these  omitted  features  presents  difficulties  to  the  adoption 
of  the  Logos  doctrine.  It  is  probable  that  for  this  very 
reason  they  were  omitted. 

This  departure  from  the  synoptic  representation  of 
Jesus  is  too  obviously  congruous  with  the  Logos  con- 
ception of  the  Prologue  to  need  comment.  It  is  not  only 
congruous  with  that  conception,  but  seems  to  be  neces- 
sarily involved  in  it. 

4.  Mediatorship  of  Jesus,  (a)  Its  Nature.  Jesus 
appears  in  John  as  the  sovereign  representative  of  God. 

1  See  Mt.   11:3,   14.  aSee  i::8,  3:16.   18. 

2  See   13:31;    14:13;    16:14;   17:1,   5- 


THE  FOURTH   GOSPEL  69 

The  Father  recedes  into  the  background :  he  is  not  needed 
where  Jesus  is.  It  is  peculiar  to  the  Johannine  mediator- 
ship  of  Jesus  that  it  separates  God  and  the  soul  rather 
than  unites  them.  By  keeping  the  commandments  of 
Christ  the  disciple  abides  in  his  love,  as  he  abides  in  the 
love  of  the  Father  (15:10).  It  is  not  said  that  the 
disciple  abides  in  the  Father's  love :  that  is  the  privilege 
of  Jesus  only.  The  disciple  can  only  aspire  to  an  abiding 
in  him  as  he  abides  in  the  Father.  The  passage  17:21 
is  not  a  real  exception,  for  it  does  not  speak  of  an 
independent  abiding  of  the  believer  in  God,  but  it  repre- 
sents Jesus  as  saying  "that  they  may  be  in  us/'  that  is  to 
say,  the  believer  is  in  the  Father  only  by  virtue  of  his 
relation  to  Jesus. 

This  conception  of  the  mediatorship  of  Jesus  is  much 
unlike  that  of  the  synoptists.  We  may  take  the  parable 
of  the  Lost  Son  as  typical  of  Jesus'  mediatorship  according 
to  the  early  Gospel  (Lk.  15  :i  1-32) .  That  story  is  a  reve- 
lation of  God's  character.  Its  power  lies  in  its  presenta- 
tion of  the  Father's  love.  Jesus  makes  that  so  real  and 
mighty  that  it  draws  the  wanderer  back  to  his  Father's 
house.  As  Jesus  trusted  in  the  Father  and  found  his 
own  strength  in  that  trust,  so  he  sought  to  establish  his 
disciples  also  on  the  same  foundation.  It  is  emphatically 
true  of  Jesus  that  he  preached  not  himself  but  the  Father. 
Far  from  claiming  that  men  should  honor  him  as  they 
honored  the  Father  (Jn.  5:23),  he  studiously  avoided, 
until  the  very  end  of  his  ministry,  even  the  claim  to  be 
the  Messiah. 

But  while  this  conception  of  mediatorship  is  widely  dif- 
ferent from  that  of  the  synoptists,  it  is  quite  in  harmony 
with  the  Logos-doctrine  of  the  author.  For  according  to 
this,  God  does  not  come  into  contact  with  the  world  or 
with  men,  but  works  through  the  Logos.  Once  identify 
the  Logos  in  all  his  fulness  with  Jesus,  as  the  Prologue  of 
John  does,  and  we  cannot  be  surprised  to  hear  Jesus  say 
that  men  should  honor  him  as  they  honor  the  Father,  and 
that  the  goal  of  spiritual  development  is  that  the  disciple 
should  abide  in  him  as  he  abides  in  the  Father. 

Thus  the  difference  between  the  mediatorship  of  Jesus 


JO  THE   SOURCES 

according  to  John  and  that  of  the  synoptists  is  just  such 
as  the  Logos  doctrine  naturally  introduces.  And  as  that 
doctrine  is  Greek,  so  this  modification  of  early  teaching 
must  be  set  down  to  Greek  influence. 

(b)  Its  unh  c  r  sal  it  y.  Hardly  a  feature  of  the  Gospel 
of  John  is  more  striking,  as  one  comes  to  it  from  the 
synoptists,  than  its  universality.  The  Baptist  and  the 
woman  of  Samaria,  as  well  as  Jesus  himself,  speak  of  the 
Gospel  in  its  relation  to  the  whole  world.  The  bread  of 
God  gives  life  to  humanity  in  general,  irrespective  of  all 
national  lines  (6:33).  The  light  in  Jesus  is  the  light  of 
the  world  (8:12;  9:5).  What  he  speaks,  he  speaks  to 
the  world  (8  :26),  and  his  promise  is  that  he  will  draw  all 
men  unto  himself  (12:32). 

This  universalism  of  John  is  in  marked  contrast  to  the 
synoptic  representation.  There  Jesus  told  his  disciples 
that  he  was  sent  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel 
(  Mt.  15:24),  and  to  them  he  sent  his  disciples  (10:6). 
Mis  habitual  outlook  was  national,  though  references  to  a 
world-wide  influence  are  not  wholly  wanting  (e.g.,  Mt.  5  : 
14;  14:9).  Jesus  would  have  been  less  optimistic  than 
the  Old  Testament  had  he  not  anticipated  that  his  king- 
dom would  eventually  bless  all  nations.  But  at  the  same 
time,  his  eye  was  habitually  upon  his  own  people  Israel, 
and  allusions  to  a  universal  work  are  exceptional.  He 
was  a  Jew  and  spoke  with  Jews  in  mind.  But  in  John 
the  national  character  of  the  work  of  Jesus  is  lost  in  its 
universal  character.  He  does  not  talk  as  a  prophet  of 
Israel,  but  as  the  Light  of  the  world. 

But  while  in  strongest  contrast  to  the  synoptic  teaching 
this  feature  of  John  is  a  natural  corollary  of  the  Logos- 
doctrine.  Since  the  Logos,  before  his  incarnation,  was 
the  light  of  all  men  (1:4),  it  was  to  be  expected  that, 
when  incarnate,  his  mission  would  be  universal.  The 
pre-incarnate  Logos  had  indeed  sustained  a  peculiar  rela- 
tion to  the  Jewish  people  (1:11),  and  so,  according  to 
John,  did  the  incarnate  Logos,  inasmuch  as  his  earthly 
manifestation  was  almost  wholly  limited  to  them;  but  this 
limitation  was  only  temporary.  His  essential  relation- 
ships are  thought  of  as  universal. 


THE   FOURTH    GOSPEL  7 1 

5.  The  Fatherhood  of  God.  In  the  Gospel  of  John 
God's  fatherhood  is  practically  limited  to  Jesus.  The 
familiar  synoptic  words  "your  Father"  occur  but  once  in 
John  (20:17),  and  even  then  they  are  limited  to  the 
disciples  of  Jesus.  God  is  occasionally  spoken  of  as  "the 
Father''  in  an  absolute  sense,1  but  with  the  single  excep- 
tion noted  above  his  fatherhood  is  not  brought  into 
personal  relation  to  any  one  besides  Jesus.  This  fact  is 
the  more  noticeable  because  John  uses  the  name  "Father" 
almost  as  many  times  as  all  the  synoptists  together.  Jesus 
says  "my  Father"  many  times,  and  many  times  says  "the 
Father"  when  the  connection  limits  the  fatherly  relation 
to  himself,  but  the  free  and  gracious  use  of  the  term 
which  characterizes  the  synoptic  story  is  absent  here. 

In  harmony  with  this  limitation  of  fatherhood  is  the 
fact  that,  in  John,  with  the  single  exception  of  3  :i6,  the 
love  of  God  is  confined  to  Jesus  and  to  those  who  love 
Jesus.  The  thought  is  emphatically  expressed  that  the 
way  to  secure  the  Father's  love  is  to  love  Jesus  (e.g.,  14: 
21 ;  16:27). 

Now  this  limitation  of  God's  fatherhood,  which  stands 
in  such  striking  opposition  to  the  synoptic  teaching,  is 
easily  intelligible  from  the  standpoint  of  the  Prologue. 
A  Jesus  who  was  the  incarnation  of  the  eternal  Logos, 
that  being  who  had  always  stood  in  intimate  fellowship 
with  God  and  through  whom  God's  power  and  grace  had 
been  revealed,  might  naturally  claim  an  altogether  unique 
place  in  God's  love,  and  his  sonship  might  naturally  be 
set  forth  as  the  fact  supremely  worthy  of  consideration. 

This  survey  of  the  Greek  element  in  the  Gospel  of  John, 
though  it  may  have  omitted  details  that  ought  to  appear 
and  may  include  others  which  might  be  otherwise  ex- 
plained, seems  to  me  to  be  the  cap-stone  of  the  evidence 
that  in  this  remarkable  writing  we  have,  not  history  and 
not  biography,  but  a  profound  philosophical  meditation  in 
which  the  facts  of  the  life  of  Jesus  are  treated  with 
sovereign  freedom.  It  is  not  necessary  to  believe  that 
every  Set  has  been  so  treated — that  there  are  no  trust- 
worthy data  in  the  document.     Much  indeed  can  be  said 

1  Sec  4:2;  6:27,  46,  etc. 


*]2  THE   SOURCES 

for  the  historical  value  of  certain  features  of  the  Johan- 
nine  representation,1  and  a  wise  criticism  will  ever  seek 
to  discover  and  use  all  such  reliable  material;  but  the 
author  himself  unmistakably  puts  us  on  our  guard  against 
accepting  any  statement  in  his  writing  as  historical  except 
on  thorough  investigation,  and  in  this  investigation  the 
earliest  documents  embedded  in  the  synoptic  Gospels  will 
always  have  a  determinative  influence.  And,  in  any  case, 
whether  one  sees  in  the  Gospel  of  John  a  relatively  small 
historical  element  or  a  relatively  large  one,  its  value  for 
the  reconstruction  of  the  life  of  Jesus  is  less  than  its  value 
for  the  history  of  early  Christian  belief.  Much  that  the 
author  carries  back  to  the  teaching  of  Jesus  is  probably 
the  utterance  of  his  own  spiritual  experience  and  that  of 
his  contemporaries.  Without  going  the  length  of  regard- 
ing the  book  as  "the  supremely  true  interpretation  of 
Jesus  Christ,"  it  can  hardly  be  denied  that  some  of  its 
affirmations  are  confirmed  by  common  Qiristian  exper- 
ience. 

A  word,  finally,  as  to  the  author  and  date  of  composi- 
tion of  this  writing. 

The  pervasive  Greek  element  in  the  Gospel  of  John — 
not  to  mention  other  significant  considerations — seems  to 
render  the  traditional  view  that  it  was  composed  by  John 
the  son  of  Zebedee,  whom  Acts  calls  a  "pillar"  of  the 
church  at  Jerusalem,  impossible.  Whether  the  Gospel 
made  use  of  a  Johannine  tradition,  written  or  oral,  is  an 
open  question.  Recent  discussion  of  the  date  of  composi- 
tion of  this  work  is  strongly  in  favor  of  the  early  part  of 
the  second  century.  The  suggestion  that  the  author  sus- 
tained a  double  relation  to  Gnosticism,  showing  now  a 
sympathy  with  its  teaching  (note  his  emphasis  on  knowl- 
edge, 5:42;  7:17;  8:32;  17:2)  and  again  turning  away 
from  it  (note  his  insistence  on  the  reality  of  Christ's 
humanity,  4:6;  11:35;  19:34),  seems  a  better  reason  for 
assigning  the  book  to  the  period  100-120  A.D.  than  the 
language  of  5  .'43  is  for  assigning  it  to  a  time  subsequent 
to  Barcochba's  uprising  (132  A.D.). 

1  See  the  discussion  of  The  Historical  Value  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  by 
Alan  England  Brooke  in  the  volume  of  Cambridge  Essays,  ed.  by  H.  B. 
Swcte,    1909,   pp.   291-328. 


CHAPTER  III 
OTHER  SOURCES  FOR  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

18.  The  Lack  of  early  Jewish  or  Pagan  References  to 
Jesus. 

All  early  and  first-hand  knowledge  of  Jesus  comes  from 
Christian  sources.  In  the  century  after  his  death  one 
Jewish  writer  and  three  Romans  allude  to  him  or  to  the 
new  religion  that  bore  his  name,  but  their  allusions  are 
of  the  most  meagre  sort.  Josephus  (37  to  about  100 
A.D.)  refers  to  Jesus  in  a  wholly  incidental  manner  when 
describing  the  death  of  James.  This  man,  he  says,  was 
the  brother  of  Jesus  who  was  called  Christ1 — that  is  all. 
He  says  much  more  about  John  the  Baptist,  more  about 
Judas  of  Galilee  who  made  an  insurrection  in  6  A.D. 
Whether  he  ignored  Jesus  from  a  personal  anti-Christian 
motive  or  out  of  regard  for  his  Roman  readers  does  not 
appear. 

Fliny  the  younger  (62-113  A.D.),  who  had  made  a 
campaign  in  Syria  in  the  generation  following  Paul's 
work  there  and  who  was  consul  of  Pontus  and  Bithynia 
in  103  A.D..  in  a  letter  to  Trajan  regarding  the  persecu- 
tion of  Christian-.  Bays  that  they  sang  hymns  to  Christ, 
from  which  it  appears  that  he  regarded  Christ  as  the 
founder  of  the  Christian  sect,  but  he  manifests  npjtJthe 
slightest  personal  interest  in  him.  The  new  sect  was  in 
his  judgment  a  ''debased  and  immoderate  superstition" 
which  he  believed  could  be  suppressed.  Suetonius,  a 
historian  of  the  Caesars  who  wrote  after  the  close  of  the 
apostolic  age,  has  merely  a  vague  echo  of  the  name  of 
Christ2  in  a  passage  regarding  the  expulsion  of  the  Jews 
trom   kome.     Finally,   Tacitus   himself    (about    51-113 

1  Antiq.  ao.o.t.     The  passage   18.3.3  »»  universally  recognized  as  corrupt. 

2  Claudius,   25. 

73 


74  THE   SOURCES 

A.D.),  though  he  had  so  far  investigated  the  history  of 
the  Jews  that  he  was  able  to  give  a  half-dozen  theories 
of  their  origin,1  and  though  he  thought  it  worthy  of  his 
pages  to  mention  the  prodigies  said  to  have  been  seen  in 
Jerusalem  before  its  fall,2  refers  to  Christ  only  as  an  item 
of  subordinate  interest  in  his  description  of  the  burning 
of  Rome.  He  says  that  the  man  from  whom  the  Chris- 
tians  were  called — "this  most  mischievous  superstition" — 
suffered  the  extreme  penalty  during  the  reign  of  Tiberius 
at  the  hands  of  Pontius  Pilate.  Evidently  the  celebrated 
Roman  historian  saw  nothing  in  Christ  and  the  Christian 
movement  of  his  time  that  was  significant  for  the  empire 
or  for  himself.  As  far  as  that  movement  had  any  mean- 
ing at  all,  it  was  evil  and  evil  only. 

Other  eminent  writers  of  the  early  Christian  decades, 
as  Philo  of  Alexandria  (a  contemporary  of  Jesus  and 
Paul),  Seneca  (ff>5  A.D.)  and  Plutarch  (fca.-  120  A.D.), 
do  not  even  allude  to  Jesus.  This  is  particularly  note- 
worthy in  the  case  of  Plutarch,  for  he  had  both  a  wide 
knowledge  of  men  and  events  and  also  an  intense  interest 
in  whatever  concerned  morals  and  religion.  He  wrote 
biographies  of  men  who  were  nearly  or  quite  contem- 
porary with  Jesus,  but  of  this  man,  whose  influence  now 
immeasurably  outweighs  that  of  all  the  heroes  of  his 
fascinating  pages,  he  appears  not  even  to  have  heard. 
With  facts  like  these  in  view  we  are  reminded  of  the 
words  of  Jesus  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  like  leaven, 
and  that  it  cometh  not  with  observation.  Paul  indeed 
said  to  the  Romans  "your  faith  is  proclaimed  throughout 
the  whole  world"  (1 :8),  and  to  the  Thessalonians  "from 
you  hath  sounded  forth  the  word  of  the  Lord,  not  only  in 
Macedonia  and  Achaia,  but  in  every  place  your  faith  to 
God-ward  is  gone  forth"  (I  Th.  1:8),  but  this  is  the 
language  of  ardent  enthusiasm.  Until  long  after  Paul  had 
finished  his  "good  fight"  the  great  Greek  and  Roman 
world  as  represented  by  its  distinguished  writers  was 
apparently  quite  unacquainted  with  Jesus  and  knew  of 
his  followers  only  to  despise  them  as  an  offshoot  of  the 

1  History,   5  -.2. 

2  History,  5:13. 


OTHER   SOURCES  75 

Jewish  religion,  which  was  generally  regarded  as  "taste- 
less and  mean." 

When  therefore  we  speak  of  the  sources  of  our  his- 
torical knowledge  of  Jesus  we  must  recognize  that  they 
are  distinctly  Christian  and  almost  exclusively  limited  to 
the  New  Testament. 

ip.     The  Epistles  of  the  New  Testament  and  the  Life  of 
Jesus. 

Of  New  Testament  epistles  there  is  a  group  of  at  least 
six1  which  are  conceded  to  have  been  written  some  years 
before  the  earliest  of  our  Gospels.  When  we  examine 
these  writings  in  relation  to  the  life  and  teaching  of  Jesus, 
we  notice,  first,  that  they  give  a  number  of  concrete  facts 
regarding  his  life  but  make  scarcely  any  direct  reference 
to  his  teaching;  and  second  that  they  show  no  trace  of 
written  sources  of  information  on  these  subjects.  Paul 
gives  a  considerable  number  of  details  about  the  earthly 
career  of  Jesus.  He  speaks  of  him  as  sprung  from  the 
seed  of  David,  as  a  man  who  had  several  brothers,  of 
whom  one  was  called  James.2  He  was  meek  and  gentle 
in  manner  and  lived  a  sinless  life.3  He  gathered  a  com- 
pany of  disciples  which  at  the  time  of  his  death  numbered 
more  than  five  hundred,  and  he  appointed  twelve  apostles.4 
His  distinctive  teaching,  which  Paul  calls  a  "law,"  was 
concerned  with  man's  relation  to  his  fellowmen.5  He 
instituted  a  supper  for  his  disciples  in  the  night  of  his 
betrayal ;  he  was  crucified  and  buried ;  on  the  third  day  he 
was  raised.6  Afterward  he  appeared  to  Peter,  to  James, 
twice  to  the  Twelve,  and  once  to  more  than  five  hundred 
brethren.7 

Now  while  these  details,  with  the  exception  of  the 
second  and  third,  are  important,  they  are  quite  discon- 
nected, and  no  one  of  the  passages  gives  us  a  warm  and 
vivid  glimpse  of  the  Master's  life. 

1  The  four  major  epistles  of  Paul — Romans,  Corinthians  (1-11)  and 
Galatians.  This  group  might  be  enlarged  to  ten  with  very  wide  consent  of 
scholars. 

2  Rom.  1:3;  I  Cor.  9:5;  Gal.  1:19. 
•II  Cor.   10:1;   5:21. 

«I  Cor.   15:6;   15:5-  "Gal.  6:2. 

•I  Cor.  11:23;  Gal.  2:20;  I  Cor.  15:4.  TI  Cor.  15:5-7- 


j6  THE  SOURCES 

Again,  these  letters  make  little  direct  account  of  the 
teaching  of  Jesus.  By  bearing  one  another's  burdens  the 
Galatians  are  told  that  they  fulfil  the  "law"  of  Christ 
(6:2),  and  one  may  assume  that  in  his  preaching  to  the 
Galatians  Paul  had  illustrated  this  "law  of  Christ"  by 
quotations  from  the  Master's  teaching,  but  this  is  of 
course  not  certain.  In  his  first  letter  to  the  Corinthians 
he  alludes  to  the  teaching  of  Jesus  on  the  subject  of 
divorce  (7:10-12),  and  later  cites  the  words  which  Jesus 
is  said  to  have  used  at  the  Supper  (11 :24-26).  This  lack 
of  appeal  to  the  spoken  words  of  Jesus  seems  to  have 
been  according  to  a  settled  principle  of  the  apostle,  for 
he  declares  that  the  gospel  preached  by  him  came 
"through  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ"  (Gal.  1  :i2).  Among 
the  Corinthians  at  least  he  was  determined  not  to  know 
anything  save  Jesus  Christ  and  him  crucified  (I  Cor.  2:2), 
— a  word  which  certainly  suggests  a  relatively  slight 
interest  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus  which  had  been  handed 
down  by  tradition  and  also  in  the  events  of  his  career 
with  the  exception  of  the  crucifixion.  Possibly  this  tra- 
dition was  in  mind  when  the  apostle  declared  that  he  no 
longer  knew  Christ  "after  the  flesh"  (2  Cor.  5:16). 

The  second  point  noted  above  was  that  these  early 
Christian  letters  make  no  reference  to  any  writing  on  the 
life  or  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  Converts  were  not  referred 
to  any  Christian  writings  for  instruction,  but  were  re- 
ferred to  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  Paul,  even  when  speak- 
ing on  the  resurrection — a  subject  that  he  argued  at 
length — made  no  appeal  to  Christian  documents  in  con- 
firmation of  the  alleged  event.  It  may  well  be  that  this 
would  in  any  case  have  seemed  to  him  unnecessary  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  there  were  living  witnesses 
(I  Cor.  15:6). 

Not  only  does  Paul  make  no  allusion  to  a  written 
source  of  information  on  the  life  and  words  of  Jesus, 
but  the  details  which  he  gives  imply  a  source  somewhat 
different  from  our  synoptic  Gospels.  Thus  these  Gospels 
know  nothing  of  an  appearance  of  the  risen  Jesus  to 
above  five  hundred  brethren  at  once,  nor  do  the  words 
of  Jesus  at  the  giving  of  the  bread  and  wine  which  Paul 


OTHER   SOURCES  JJ 

records  in  I  Cor.  1 1  '.24-2$  agree  wholly  with  those  in 
either  of  the  synoptists. 

Such  then,  in  few  words,  is  the  relation  of  the  earliest 
New  Testament  letters  to  the  life  and  teaching  of  Jesus. 
What  has  been  said  of  the  early  Church1  is  eminently  true 
of  Paul,  that  his  thought  was  "fixed  on  the  heavenly 
Christ,  in  whose  career  the  earthly  appearance  of  Jesus 
was  a  mere  transitory,  though  an  important,  episode." 
Doubtless  the  speedy  coming  of  Christ  which  was  uni- 
versally anticipated  in  the  first  Christian  decades  tended 
powerfully  to  turn  the  mind  of  the  Church  away  from 
the  past  to  the  all-absorbing  future. 

20.    Fragments  of  Lost  Gospels. 

(1)  The  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews.2  Jerome 
and  Origen,  to  whom  we  are  indebted  for  most  of  the 
fragments  of  this  ancient  writing,  most  commonly  desig- 
nated it  as  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews.  There 
was  a  copy  of  it  in  the  library  at  Caesarea  in  the  time  of 
Jerome.  The  Gospel  was  written,  Jerome  tells  us,  in 
Hebrew  characters  but  in  the  Chaldee  tongue.  He  trans- 
lated it  both  into  Greek  and  Latin.3  It  was  used  in  his 
time  by  the  sects  of  the  Nazarenes  and  Ebionites,4  and  it 
is  plain  from  the  manner  in  which  Origen  refers  to  it 
that  it  was  not  accepted  by  all  Christians  in  his  time. 

The  esteem  in  which  this  Gospel  was  held  by  such  men 
as  Origen  and  Jerome,  who  had  the  complete  Gospel  in 
their  hands,  is  a  fact  that  commends  it  to  us,  as  also  is 
Jerome's  statement — which  we  are  not  able  to  test — that 
the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews  cited  the  Old  Testament 
according  to  the  original  and  not  from  the  Septuagint.5 
A  further  presumption  in  its  favor  is  established  if  we 
accept  Harnack's6  conclusion  that  its  composition  must 
be  assigned  to  the  period  65  (70) -100  A.D.,  which  makes 
it  a  contemporary  of  the  synoptic  Gospels. 

It  is  necessary  therefore  to  consider  the  extant  frag- 

1  Menzies,  The  Earliest  Gospel. 

*  Jerome  refers  to  it  as  evangeltum  secundum  Hebraeos,  Evang.  juxta 
Hebraeos,  and  hebraicum  (evang.);  Clement  of  Alexandria  and  Origin  call 
it  t*  «•»'  'E/ipoiouc  cvayytAwi' ;  Origen  also  calls  it  simply  to  IqvUikov. 

*  De  vir.  til.  c.  2.  *  Contra  Pel.  3.  2:  Com.  on  Matt.  12:13. 

*D<  vir.  ill.  c.  3.  *Geschichte  der  Altchristl.  Literatur,  »:i,  p.  650.. 


yS  THE  SOURCES 

ments  of  this  Gospel  somewhat  in  detail  in  order  that  we 
may  determine  whether  they  are  to  be  regarded  as  trust- 
worthy sources  of  information  on  the  life  of  Jesus. 

With  the  exception  of  two  or  three  minor  textual  points, 
the  fragments  are  as  follows  i1 

(i)  "Behold,  the  mother  of  the  Lord  and  his  brothers 
said  to  him,  John  the  Baptist  is  baptizing  for  the  remission 
of  sins :  let  us  go  and  be  baptized  of  him.  But  he  said  to 
them,  In  what  have  I  sinned  that  I  should  go  and  be  bap- 
tized of  him,  unless  perchance  this  very  word  that  I  have 
spoken  be  ignorance." 

(2)  "Moreover  it  came  to  pass,  when  the  Lord  came 
up  out  of  the  water,  that  all  the  fountain  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  descended  and  rested  upon  him,  and  said  to  him: 
My  Son,  in  all  the  prophets  I  waited  for  thee  to  come, 
that  I  might  rest  in  thee ;  for  thou  art  my  rest,  thou  art 
my  first-born  Son,  who  reigneth  for  ever." 

(3)  "Now  my  mother  the  Holy  Spirit  took  me  by  one 
of  the  hairs  of  my  head,  and  bore  me  away  to  the  great 
mountain  Tabor." 

(4)  In  the  Lord's  Prayer  the  Gospel  according  to 
Hebrews  had,  instead  of  "daily,"  the  word  "morrow." 

(5)  "I  was  a  stone-mason,  earning  my  food  with  my 
hands.  I  pray  thee,  Jesus,  to  restore  me  to  health  that 
I  may  not  beg  bread  in  shame." 

(6)  "If  thy  brother  have  sinned  in  word  and  have  con- 
fessed to  thee,  receive  him  seven  times  in  the  day.  Simon, 
his  disciple,  said  to  him,  Seven  times  in  the  day?  The 
Lord  replied  and  said  to  him,  Yea,  I  say  to  thee,  until 
seventy  times  seven.  For  even  in  the  prophets,  after 
they  had  been  anointed  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  sinful 
speech  was  found." 

(7)  "Another  of  the  rich  men  said  to  him,  Master, 
what  good  thing  shall  I  do  that  I  may  live?  He  said  to 
him,  Man,  do  the  laws  and  the  prophets.  He  replied,  I 
have  done  (them).  He  said  to  him,  Go,  sell  all  thou  hast, 
and  divide  it  among  the  poor,  and  come,  follow  me.  But 
the  rich  man  began  to  scratch  his  head  and  he  was  not 
pleased.     And  the  Lord  said  to  him,  How  sayest  thou,  I 

1  From  Nestle's  N.   T.  Graeci  Supplementum,   1896,  pp.   76-81. 


OTHER   SOURCES  79 

have  done  the  law  and  the  prophets?  For  it  is  written 
in  the  law,  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself;  and 
k>,  many  brothers  of  thine,  sons  of  Abraham,  are  clothed 
in  filth,  dying  of  hunger,  and  thy  house  is  full  of  good 
things,  and  nothing  at  all  goes  forth  from  it  to  them. 
And  having  turned  he  said  to  Simon  his  disciple  who  was 
sitting  near  him,  Simon,  son  of  John,  it  is  easier  for  a 
camel  to  go  through  the  eye  of  a  needle  than  for  a  rich 
man  to  enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 

(8)  In  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews  it  was  said  that  "the 
lintel  of  the  temple,  which  was  of  great  size,  collapsed," 
i.e.  at  the  death  of  Jesus. 

(9)  "But  the  Lord,  when  he  had  given  the  linen  cloth 
to  the  servant  of  the  priest,  went  to  James  and  appeared 
to  him.  For  James  had  vowed  that  he  would  not  eat 
bread  from  that  hour  when  he  had  drunk  the  cup  of  the 
Lord  until  he  should  see  him  risen  from  those  who  sleep." 
.  .  .  "The  Lord  said,  Bring  a  table  and  bread."  .  .  .  "He 
took  bread  and  blessed  and  brake  and  gave  to  James  the 
Just  and  said  to  him,  My  brother,  eat  thy  bread,  for  the 
Son  of  Man  is  risen  from  those  who  sleep." 

(10)  "And  never  rejoice,  said  he,  unless  ye  see  your 
brother  in  love." 

(11)  "He  who  wonders  shall  rule  and  he  who  rules 
shall  find  rest." 

Of  these  fragments  only  one  is  purely  narrative,  that 
concerning  the  lintel  of  the  temple.  This  feature  looks 
like  a  modification  of  Amos  9:1.  In  itself  it  is  vague,  for 
there  was  more  than  one  door  in  the  temple,  and  so  more 
than  one  lintel. 

In  the  remaining  fragments  we  have  words  of  Jesus, 
or — in  one  instance — simply  words  to  Jesus.  These  we 
must  look  at  in  the  light  of  the  Logia  and  of  the  triple 
tradition. 

The  summons  to  Jesus  from  his  mother  and  brothers 
to  go  to  the  baptism  of  John  is  certainly  not  intrinsically 
probable.  It  is  more  likely  that  Jesus  was  the  first  of  the 
household  to  start  for  the  Jordan  than  that  his  mother 
and  brothers  were  first. 

But  the  evident  point  of  this  story  is  the  answer  ot 


80  THE  SOURCES 

Jesus.  He  is  represented  as  conceding  the  possibility 
that  he  had  been  guilty  of  a  sin  of  ignorance  in  uttering 
words  which  implied  sinlessness.  It  has  been  said  that 
no  one  in  the  early  Church  would  have  imputed  these 
words  to  Jesus,  for  he  was  everywhere  regarded  as  sin- 
less, and  that  they  must  therefore  have  been  spoken  by 
him.1  But  surely  the  Jesus  who  comes  before  us  in  the 
Logia  and  in  the  synoptic  narrative  knew  himself.  His 
mind  was  not  in  a  hazy  state.  He  is  not  the  kind  of  man 
to  say  that  "perhaps"  he  has  spoken  in  ignorance.  It  is 
easier  to  suppose  that  these  words  are  quite  fictitious 
than  to  reconcile  them  with  what  our  best  sources  teach 
about  Jesus. 

In  the  account  of  the  baptism  of  Jesus  the  Gospel  of 
the  Hebrews  departs  widely  both  from  the  Old  Testament 
and  from  the  synoptic  Gospels.  It  represents  the  Messiah 
as  the  Son  of  the  Spirit,  not  as  the  Son  of  the  Father 
(Ps.  2:j\  2  Sam.  7:14),  and  as  addressed  at  his  baptism 
not  by  the  Father  (Mk.  1  :ii),  but  by  the  Spirit.  This 
language  is  in  line  with  the  account  of  the  miraculous 
birth  of  Jesus,  and  may  have  come  from  the  same  circle. 
Further,  the  Spirit's  identification  of  itself  with  the 
prophets  and  its  longing  for  the  Messiah's  coming  that  it 
might  find  rest  in  him  are  features  of  secondary  char- 
acter. For  whatever  conversation  the  Spirit  had  with 
Jesus  at  his  baptism  must  have  been  reported  to  the  dis- 
ciples by  him ;  but  we  know  from  the  Logia  that  his  con- 
ception of  the  Spirit  was  that  of  the  Old  Testament 
prophets — a  conception  fundamentally  different  from  this. 

The  other  passage  in  which  the  Spirit  is  involved  makes 
an  equally  strong  impression  of  being  secondary  in  char- 
acter. The  words  *'My  mother  the  Holy  Spirit  took 
me  by  one  of  the  hairs  of  my  head  and  bore  me  away  to 
the  great  mountain  Tabor"  are  obviously  a  reminiscence 
of  Ezekiel  8:8.  The  conception  of  the  Spirit  is  as  far 
removed  as  possible  from  that  in  the  synoptic  narrative. 
According  to  that,  Jesus  went  forth  into  the  wilderness 
under  the  stress  of  an  inner  impulse;  but  here  he   is 

1  Harnack,  Cesch.  d.  alt.  Litcratur,  2:1,  p.  648;  Holtzmann,  The  Life  of 
Jesus,  Engl.  ed.  p.  47. 


OTHER   SOURCES  8 1 

taken  to  Tabor  by  a  purely  external  agency  of  the  Spirit. 

As  to  the  peculiar  reading  of  the  Lord's  Prayer  in  the 
Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  we  surely  ought  not 
to  argue  that  it  must  be  original  because  it  is  Aramaic. 
Who  can  guarantee  that  the  Jewish  Christian  disciples  of 
Palestine  were  blameless  preservers  of  tradition?  The 
mere  fact  that  they  spoke  the  language  of  Jesus  is  surely 
not  a  proof  that  they  comprehended  his  teaching.  The 
reading  machar  (ino),  which  Jerome  renders  crastinum, 
is  assuredly  difficult,  but  that  fact  alone  cannot  secure 
its  acceptance  as  original.  It  is  too  difficult,  for  it  intro- 
duces a  thought  which  is  directly  at  variance  with  the 
context.  Jesus  was  seeking  to  inculcate  trust  in  the 
heavenly  Father.  He  told  his  disciples  that  they  were 
not  to  be  anxious  for  the  morrow.  Are  we  then  to  hold 
that  he  taught  them  to  pray,  "Give  us  today  tomorrow's 
bread"?  Before  we  substitute  this  for  the  reading  of 
the  Logia,  we  ought  at  least  to  see  the  entire  verse  as  it 
stood  in  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews. 

The  next  passage  in  the  Gospel  according  to  the 
Hebrews,  parallel  to  Mark  3:1-6,  makes  a  favorable  im- 
pression, and  so  also  does  the  clause  which  it  adds  to  the 
words  of  Jesus  regarding  the  forgiveness  of  a  penitent 
brother:  "For  even  in  the  prophets,  after  they  had  been 
anointed  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  sinful  speech  was  found." 

We  come  now  to  the  story  of  the  rich  young  man  who 
came  to  Jesus  with  the  question  what  good  thing  he 
should  do  in  order  that  he  might  live.  The  course  of 
thought  in  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  is  not  so 
clear  as  it  is  in  the  synoptists.  When  the  man  says  that 
he  has  kept  the  law  and  the  prophets,  Jesus  does  not  chal- 
lenge the  claim:  he  calls  upon  him  to  dispose  of  his 
property  and  become  his  disciple.  But  afterward,  when 
the  man  is  displeased  at  Jesus'  word,  the  Lord  is  repre- 
sented as  going  back  to  the  former  response  and  as  show- 
ing up  the  man's  insincerity.  But  it  is  inherently  improb- 
able that  Jesus,  knowing  that  the  man  was  insincere, 
would  have  summoned  him  to  discipleship. 

Thus  while  the  story  appears  to  be  independent  of  the 
synoptists,  it  is  also  inferior  to  them, 
6 


82  THE  SOURCES 

The  remaining  fragment,  if  we  except  the  two  brief 
ethical  maxims  which  are  without  special  weight  for  the 
question  of  the  historical  value  of  the  document,  is  con- 
cerned with  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  and  reveals  the 
utterly  secondary  character  of  this  Nazarene  Gospel.  The 
gift  of  the  linen  cloth  to  the  "servant  of  the  priest" 
involves  a  departure  from  all  New  Testament  represen- 
tations of  the  resurrection,  for  it  implies  an  appearance 
of  the  risen  Lord  to  a  person  who  was  not  a.  disciple. 
Again,  the  assumption  that  one  of  the  brothers  of  Jesus 
could  have  made  a  vow  not  to  eat  until  he  should  see  Jesus 
risen  from  those  who  sleep  is  utterly  improbable.  That 
would  clearly  imply  a  sure  belief  that  Jesus  would  soon 
rise,  but  this  is  contrary  to  all  that  we  know  even  of  the 
disciple/  attitude  toward  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  not  to 
speak  of  the  attitude  of  those  who  were  not  disciples. 

We  conclude  therefore  from  this  examination  of  the 
fragments  of  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  that 
this  writing,  even  though  of  high  antiquity,  was  not 
worthy  to  be  classed  with  the  synoptic  Gospels  as  a 
source  of  information  on  the  life  and  teaching  of  Jesus. 
The  fragments  are  of  interest  and  in  various  ways  throw 
light  on  our  Gospels,  but  they  are  of  no  independent  his- 
torical value. 

(2)  The  Gospel  of  Peter.  A  Gospel  with  this  name 
was  in  use  at  the  close  of  the  second  century  at  Rhossus, 
and  Serapion,  bishop  of  Antioch  (190-203  A.D.),  to 
whose  see  Rhossus  belonged,  judged  concerning  it  that 
while  most  of  it  belonged  to  the  right  teaching-  of  the 
Saviour,  some  things  were  added.  Eusebius  put  it  among 
the  writings  which  had  been  produced  by  heretics  and 
falsely  ascribed  to  apostles.1 

A  fragment  of  this  Gospel,  equal  to  about  two  average 
chapters  of  Mark,  was  discovered  in  1886  at  Akhmim, 
Egypt,  and  was  published  in  1892.  From  this  it  is  evi- 
dent that  the  author  was  unacquainted  with  the  political 
condition  of  Palestine  in  the  time  of  Christ,  for  it  repre- 
sents Herod  as  giving  command  that  Jesus  should  be 
crucified,  while  Pilate  holds  a  subordinate  position. 

1  Church  Hist.  3.25.6. 


OTHER   SOURCES  83 

The  legendary  strain  in  this  fragment  is  conspicuous. 
Thus  it  says  that  when  the  body  of  Jesus,  having  been 
lowered  from  the  cross,  touched  the  ground,  the  "whole 
earth  quaked;"  and  again,  when  the  two  heavenly  ones 
who  had  entered  the  sepulchre  come  forth,  supporting 
Jesus  between  them,  a  cross  follows  them,  and  this  cross 
utters  an  intelligible  "yea"  in  response  to  the  question 
from  the  sky,  "Hast  thou  preached  to  them  that  slept?" 
To  the  same  strain  belongs  the  statement  that  the  heads 
of  the  two  who  supported  Jesus  reached  unto  the  heavens, 
but  "the  head  of  him  that  was  led  by  them  overpassed  the 
heavens."  This  element  goes  much  beyond  anything  in 
the  synoptic  Gospels. 

The  dogmatic  bias  of  the  Gospel  of  Peter,  to  judge  from 
our  fragment,  agrees  with  what  Eusebius  reports  Sera- 
pion  as  having  said  of  it,  namely,  that  it  came  from  the 
Docetists.  These  men  distinguished  between  Jesus  and 
Christ,  and  taught  that  Christ  departed  from  Jesus  before 
his  death.  The  most  notable  utterance  of  the  fragment 
is  its  version  of  the  cry  of  Jesus  on  the  cross,  which  reads, 
"My  Power,  my  Power,  thou  hast  forsaken  me."  This 
is  nearer  to  the  peculiar  view  of  the  Docetists  than  it  is 
to  the  thought  of  Ps.  22  :i,  which  is  quoted  in  the  canonical 
Gospels. 

The  crude  workmanship  of  the  story  is  variously  mani- 
fest. Thus  the  representation  that  it  became  light  just 
after  the  body  was  taken  down  from  the  cross  and  that 
it  was  then  found  to  be  the  ninth  hour  is  intrinsically 
improbable,  for  it  shortens  the  time  that  Jesus  was  on  the 
cross — a  period  so  short  even  in  the  synoptists  that  Pilate 
"marvelled"  (Mk.  15:44).  It  is  also  improbable  that, 
after  the  sun  had  come  out  again,  "the  Jews  and  the 
elders  and  the  priests,  perceiving  what  evil  they  had 
done  to  themselves,  began  to  lament  and  to  say,  "Woe 
for  our  sins:  the  judgment  hath  drawn  nigh  and  the 
end  of  Jerusalem."  So  to  speak  is  to  attribute  to  Jews 
the  Christian  sense  of  the  importance  of  the  death  of 
Jesus. 

We  conclude  that  this  fragment  of  the  Gospel  of  Peter, 
though  it  may  have  originated  in  the  early  part  of  the 


84  THE  SOURCES 

second  century,1  has  no  claim  to  be  ranked  with  the 
synoptists  as  a  source  of  information  on  the  life  of  Jesus. 
Its  chief  historical  interest  lies  in  the  fact  that  it  corrob- 
orates the  Marcan  view  of  the  appearance  of  the  risen 
Lord  (Mk.  14:28;  16:7)  and  also  the  Johannine  impli- 
cation that  the  ascension  was  on  the  day  of  the  resurrec- 
tion (Jn.  20:17). 

1  Harnack,  Ceschichte  d.  alt.  Literatur,  2:1,  p.  622. 


PART  II 
THE  HISTORICAL  IESUS 


CHAPTER  I 
THE  WORLD  IN  WHICH  JESUS  LIVED 

Every  man  who  lives  among  men,  however  unique  his 
native  endowments  and  however  absorbing  his  con- 
templation of  God,  is  in  a  real  and  important  sense  a  son 
of  his  people  and  his  age.  His  roots  go  down  deep  into 
forgotten  generations,  while  the  attitude  and  the  utter- 
ance of  his  spirit,  deeply  determined  by  his  nearer  en- 
vironment, are  not  wholly  unaffected  by  those  wider 
circles  and  movements  of  thought  and  action  that  lie  far 
out  beyond  the  horizon. 

Among  the  great  and  abiding  achievements  of  modern 
biblical  science,  perhaps  the  first  of  all  in  its  far-reaching 
and  profound  significance,  is  the  fact  that  through  its 
agency  the  Bible,  so  long  isolated  and  treated  as  a  thing 
by  itself,  having  affiliations  heavenward  only,  has  come 
to  be  set  in  the  midst  of  the  world's  sacred  books  as  a 
near  blood-relative,  a  member  even  of  the  same  family, 
though  having  in  its  heart  a  purer  hope  and  having  an 
eye  that  is  kindled  by  a  clearer  and  completer  vision  of 
what  the  human  spirit  longs  to  know. 

From  the  sweep  of  this  tendency  to  understand  the  bib- 
lical religion  as  a  part  of  the  multiform  religious  life  of 
mankind  it  is  impossible,  even  were  it  desired,  to  pre- 
serve, untouched,  the  life  and  teaching  of  him  in  whom 
the  Semitic  religious  spirit  found  its  final  and  perfect 
expression. 

A  survey  of  the  world,  therefore,  as  it  was  in  the  days 
of  Jesus  is  needful  to  one  who  would  see  in  true  perspec- 
tive this  character  which,  by  a  truer  interpretation  and 
more  intelligent  acceptance  on  the  part  of  men,  is  destined 
to  an  ever  higher  place  among  the  spiritual  forces  of 
history. 

87 


'77 

:-T7 


88  THE  HISTORICAL  JESUS 


We  go  back  in  imagination  to  the  year  749  of  the 
Roman  Era,  which  we  will  assume  to  have  been  the  year 
of  Jesus'  birth,  and  we  shall  seek  through  the  interroga- 
tion of  men  then  living,  and  by  observance  of  what  was 
transpiring,  to  get  a  somewhat  intimate  yet  comprehen- 
sive view  of  the  world  into  which  he  was  born,  and  there- 
after shall  follow  swiftly  the  general  course  of  Roman 
and  Palestinian  history  through  the  brief  span  of  that 
life  which  terminated  in  a  public  execution  about  the  year 
29  A.D. 

In  that  year  of  749  we  find  the  world,  that  is,  the 
Roman  Empire,  which  stretched  from  the  borders  of 
India  to  the  Pillars  of  Hercules  and  from  the  North  Sea 
to  the  First  Cataract  of  the  Nile,1  dominated  by  one  great 
personality,  Octavius  Caesar,  who  was  then  at  the  height 
of  his  power.  Twelve  years  before  this,  beginning  at 
midnight  of  the  last  day  of  May,  he  had  solemnly  opened 
the  New  Age  with  religious  services  continued  through 
three  days  and  nights.2  It  was  the  common  belief, 
greatly  strengthened  by  the  comet  of  the  preceding  winter, 
that  the  Golden  Age  had  at  last  begun.  Still  earlier  by 
fourteen  years,  at  the  battle  of  Actium  (31  B.C.),  Octa- 
vius, by  the  overthrow  of  Antony  after  twice  seven  years 
of  bloody  civil  strife,  had  established  his  claim  to  be  the 
heir  of  Julius  Caesar. 

From  the  time  when  he  returned  to  Italy  (29  B.C.) 
until  the  birth  of  Jesus,  a  period  of  about  twenty-four 
years,  the  march  of  events  had  steadily  heightened  the 
glory  of  his  name.  The  plain  statement  which  he  left  to 
be  inscribed  on  the  iron  pillars  at  the  door  of  his  mauso- 
leum on  the  bank  of  the  Tiber  shows  us  vividly  what 
manner  of  man  he  was  in  whose  Egyptian  title8  he  is 
styled  "Prince  of  Princes,"  "Son  of  the  Sun,"  and  "The 
Ever  Living  One."  We  read  in  this  inscription,*  pre- 
served in  a  remote  temple  of  Asia  Minor,  that  Augustus 

1  Pliny,  Natural  History,  s,  lis,  quotes  Artemidorus  as  authority  for  the 
statement  that  the  distance  from  India  to  the  Pillars  of  Hercules  is  8568 
miles  and  that  the  greatest  width  of  the  Empire  was  4490. 

3  See  Gardthausen,  Augustus  und  seine  Zett,   1896,  I.  2,  p.   1004. 
•  See  Wendland,  Die  Hellenisck-Romische  Kultur,  1907,  p.  102. 

4  We  quote  this  inscription  according  to  the  edition  of  the  University  of 
Pennsylvania,  1899. 


/  ^ 


THE   WORLD   IN    WHICH   JESUS   LIVED  89 


had  undertaken  wars  throughout  the  whole  world  and 
had  extended  the  bounds  of  all  the  Roman  provinces 
which  were  bordered  by  nations  not  yet  subject  to  his 
sway ;  that  because  of  his  successes  the  Senate  had  decreed 
thanksgivings  to  the  immortal  gods  fifty-five  times,  in- 
volving a  total  of  890  days  given  up  to  celebrations ;  that 
the  temple  of  Janus,  which  in  the  seven  centuries  before 
his  time  had  been  closed  but  twice,  he  had  closed  three 
times ;  that  he  had  constructed  fourteen  temples  in  Rome 
at  his  own  expense,  and  had  restored  eighty-two,  not 
passing  by  any  that  was  in  need ;  that  in  his  seventh  con- 
sulship he  received  by  decree  of  the  Senate  the  title 
Augustus;1  that  in  his  eleventh  consulship  he  made  dona- 
tions of  food  to  the  Roman  populace  twelve  times  and  of 
money  three  times,  never  to  less  than  250,000  men  at  a 
time,  and  that  in  his  twelfth  consulship  he  gave  twelve 
dollars  apiece  to  320,000  people ;  that  he  had  settled  the 
veterans  of  his  legions  on  farms  in  Italy  which  cost  him 
about  thirty  millions  of  dollars ;  and  that  the  Senate  had 
decreed  him  the  name  "Father  of  the  Fatherland,"  to  be 
inscribed  in  the  vestibule  of  his  house,  also  in  the  Curia 
and  the  Forum.  We  read  further  in  this  most  illuminat- 
ing inscription  that  Caesar's  name  had  long  stood  in  the 
sacred  Salian  Hymn,  thus  associating  him  with  the  gods 
of  Rome,  and  that  on  his  return  from  Gaul  in  the  sum- 
mer of  741,  that  is,  about  eight  years  before  Jesus  was 
born,  an  altar  of  Augustan  Peace  was  decreed  on  which 
annual  sacrifices  were  to  be  offered. 

To  these  autobiographical  statements  which  help  us  to 
picture  the  man  through  his  deeds  a  significant  word  may 
be  added  from  Plutarch.2  According  to  this  writer  when 
the  lament  of  Alexander  the  Great  over  the  fact  that  there 
were  no  more  kingdoms  for  him  to  conquer  was  men- 
tioned in  the  presence  of  Augustus,  the  Emperor  won-  ) 
dered  that  Alexander  should  not  have  thought  it  a  smaller 
work  to  gain  a  great  empire  than  to  set  in  order  what  he 
had. 

Thus,  unconsciously  perhaps,  Augustus  described  his 

1  On  the  significance  of  this  title  see  Firth,  Augustus  Caesar,  1903,  p.  170. 
aSee  Miscellanies,  Goodwin's  ed.,  1.249- 


go  THE  HISTORICAL  JESUS 

own  dominant  purpose.  It  was  to  set  the  Roman  world 
in  order.  It  is  true,  he  added  vast  areas  to  the  imperial 
domain,  and  the  statement  of  Eutropius1  was  a  venial 
exaggeration,  if  any  exaggeration  at  all,  that  no  one  was 
ever  more  fortunate  in  war  than  Augustus ;  yet  it  was  the 
blessings  and  sweetness  of  public  peace,  the  protection 
of  law  and  the  sense  of  security,  which  seemed  to  his  con- 
temporaries the  greatest  and  most  characteristic  gift  of 
his  genius.2 

In  the  work  of  setting  the  Roman  Empire  in  order 
Augustus  himself,  apart  from  all  his  administrative 
measures,  was  the  chief  factor.  The  ends  of  the  Empire 
were  at  one  in  their  worship  of  him.  In  Egypt  where 
the  highest  divine  title  had  been  given  to  rulers  for  nearly 
two  centuries,  in  Egypt  whose  beautiful  capital  Augustus 
had  graciously  spared  on  entering  it  as  conqueror,  it  was 
easy  and  natural  that  he  should  at  once  be  counted  with 
the  elder  gods.  Nor  does  it  seem  to  have  been  any  the 
less  natural  in  the  Greek  islands  and  along  the  shore  of 
Asia  Minor,  the  home  of  philosophy  and  art.  The  Hali- 
carnassus  inscription  calls  Augustus  "Zeus  of  the  Father- 
land" and  "Saviour  of  the  common  race  of  man,"  and  in 
a  decree  of  Assos  he  is  called  "god."3  Suetonius  says 
that  temples  and  altars  to  Augustus  were  erected  in  all 
the  provinces.4  On  the  Monument  of  Ancyra,5  Augustus, 
looking  back  over  his  life,  says:  "The  whole  body  of  citi- 
zens have  constantly  sacrificed  at  every  shrine  for  my 
good  health."  This  is  of  course  not  formal  divine  wor- 
ship, such  as  during  his  life  was  paid  to  him  in  the 
provinces,  but  it  illustrates  the  point  in  hand,  that  Au- 
gustus himself  was  the  great  unifying  force  throughout 
the  Empire.  The  poets  of  his  day  used  language 
stronger  than  that  of  Augustus  to  which  reference  has 
just  been  made.  Let  the  following  lines  of  Horace  repre- 
sent both  him  and  the  younger  poet  Ovid.  These  writers 
shrank  not   from  applying   to   their   fellow   Roman   the 

1  See  Brri'iarxum  Hist.  Romanae,  ed.  Nisard,  1883,  7,  8.  For  a  catalogue 
of  the  misfortunes  of  Augustus  see  Pliny,  Nat.  Hist.,  7,  46. 

2  See  Tacitus,  Annals,   1,  9. 

8  Wendland,  op.  cit.,  p.   102. 

7*  Lives  of  the  Caesars:  Augustus,  49. 
8  See  chapt.  9  of  Mon.  Ancyr. 


THE   WORLD    IN    WHICH    JESUS    LIVED  91 

supreme  divine  title,  as  was  done  in  the  provinces.  In 
an  ode  to  Augustus  Horace  says : 

"Each,  passing  his  own  day  at  his  own  doors, 
Trains  vines  athwart  his  trees  ;  the  joyous  cup 

Then  handles  as  he  wills,  and  thee  adores 
As  God,  in  winding  up. 

As  Hercules  in  Greece,  or  Castor,  may, 
So  thou  hast  our  libations  and  our  prayers ; 

Before  our  Lares  we,  our  debt  to  pay, 
Thy  Godhead  blend  with  theirs."1 

This  cult  of  Augustus  which,  especially  among  Roman 
citizens,  we  may  regard  as  "a  sincere  expression  of  loyalty 
to  a  political  principle/'  while  in  the  provinces  it  may 
have  been  rather  the  expression  of  a  servile  and  idolatrous 
flattery,  rested  on  great  and  substantial  facts.  Augustus 
by  his  pacific  and  lawful  rule  stood  forth  in  a  real  sense 
as  the  "Saviour  of  the  common  race  of  men."2  He  did 
not  come  up  to  the  ideal  Wise  Man  of  the  Stoics,  neither 
did  any  philosopher  of  that  sect,  though  free  from  the 
dazzling  temptations  and  the  tremendous  responsibilities 
which  were  inseparable  from  the  high  position  of  Augus- 
tus. Yet  we  may  freely  concede  the  truth  of  his  modest 
words  that  he  had  committed  to  posterity  many  examples 
worthy  of  imitation.8 

He  lived  in  great  plainness  of  dress  and  food,  though 
master  of  endless  resources.  He  preferred  to  wear  gar- 
ments that  had  been  woven  and  made  in  his  own  dwelling 
by  members  of  his  own  family.4  The  old  Roman  domestic 
virtues  were  dear  to  him,5  and  he  sought  to  restore  them 
in  the  society  of  his  day.  He  preached  the  duty  of  mar- 
riage even  though  knights  should  be  obliged  to  take  wives 
from  among  emancipated  slaves,  and  by  the  Julian  Laws 
he  sought  to  guard  the  sacredness  of  the  marriage  bond.6 
He  revived  the  worship  of  the  Lares,  the  gods  of  the 

•    1Odes,  iv,  s,   15,  Gladstone's  version.  ~ 

*  Philo    called    him    "the    first    and    greatest    and    universal    benefactor. 
Ambassadors,  22. 

''•See  A/on.  Ancyr.,  8. 
1       c  Suetonius,  Augustus,  73. 

•If  we  may  trust  Suetonius,  the  emperor's  practice  in  this  matter  was. 
not  quite  consistent  with  his  principles. 

•  See  Gardthauscn,  op.  cit.»  p.  902, 


92  THE   HISTORICAL  JESUS 

hearth-stone  and  the  common  life.1  He  recognized  the 
evil  of  making  donations  to  the  Roman  populace,  but  he 
was  not  able  to  abolish  the  custom,  though  he  did  much 
for  the  revival  of  agriculture  in  Italy  and  thus  lessened 
the  number  of  the  poor  in  Rome.  When  soldiers  were 
discharged  at  the  end  of  their  long  term  of  service,  he 
settled  them  on  farms  and  in  this  way  not  only  kept  them 
from  swelling  the  dangerous  pauper  class  in  the  capital, 
but  secured  to  them  a  comfortable  living.  He  founded 
the  largest  public  library  in  Rome,2  and  we  may  infer 
that  he  was  not  indifferent  in  respect  to  the  character  of 
the  books  placed  in  it,  for  he  gathered  together  all  the 
so-called  prophetic  books  which  could  be  discovered,  and 
caused  them  to  be  burned,  excepting  only  the  Sibylline 
writings.  Suetonius  tells  us  that  about  2,000  books  were 
thus  destroyed.8 

When  Jesus  was  born,  there  was  in  the  Hall  of  Agrippa 
in  Rome  a  new  and  more  accurate  chart  of  the  world, 
inscribed  on  marble  and  containing  from  12,000  to  16,000 
geographical  names,  and  this  work  was  completed  by 
Augustus.4  When  Jesus  was  born,  the  coinage  of  gold 
was  uniform  throughout  practically  the  entire  Roman 
Empire,6  and  this  too  was  due  to  Augustus.  When  Jesus 
was  born,  pirates  had  been  swept  from  the  seas,6  mile- 
stones had  been  set  up  along  all  the  great  military  roads 
across  the  Empire  and  itineraries  made  which  were  based 
on  a  uniform  unit  of  distance,7  and  traffic  and  travel,  far 
and  near,  had  enormously  increased.  To  this  result 
Augustus  was  the  chief  contributor. 

Thus  the  great  and  varied  services  of  Augustus  fur- 
nished a  real  basis  for  his  cult  and  were  together  with  that 
cult  a  means  of  unifying  his  wide  and  diversified  realm. 

But  there  was  another  great  unifying  force  in  active 
operation  when  Jesus  was  born,   which  is  imperfectly 

*  *  See  Horace,   Ode  quoted;   Suetonius,  Augustus,   31. 
a  The   first   public   library   in   Rome   is  ascribed   to   A.   Pollio.     Plutarch 
ascribes  another  to  Octavia. 
-•See  his  Augustus,  31. 
*  See  Gardthausen,  op.  cit.,  p.  939. 
8  See  Gardthausen,  op.  cit.,  p.  554. 


0  see  Oarnthausen,  op.  cit.,  p.  554. 

6  See  Mon.  Ancyr.,  25;  Philo,  Ambassadors,  21. 

T  See  Schiller,  Gcsch.  d.  rom.  Kaiserzeit,  1883,  1,  419. 


THE   WORLD   IN    WHICH   JESUS   LIVED  93 

represented  to  us  by  the  terms  Greek  thought  and  Greek 
speech.  When  Augustus  worshipped  at  the  tomb  of 
Alexander  in  Egypt,  dedicating  to  him  a  coronet  and 
flowers,  he  may  not  himself  have  fully  realized  the  pro- 
priety of  the  act.  By  breaking  down  the  barriers  be- 
tween Greek  and  barbarian,  and  by  extending  southward 
and  eastward  the  benefits  of  Greek  civilization,  Alexander 
had  done  much  to  unify  the  various  races  in  preparation 
for  Augustus.  Nor  was  this  unifying  influence  confined 
wholly  to  the  East.  It  had  been  at  work  also  in  Rome 
and  Italy  for  generations.  Greek  speech  and  literature, 
Greek  philosophers,  Greek  games,  Greek  merchants  and 
physicians,  tutors  and  artists,  playwrights  and  astrol- 
ogers, had  long  been  found  in  the  maritime  cities  of  Italy 
and  in  Rome.1  They  were  there  at  the  time  of  which  we 
speak,  unconsciously  working  with  Augustus  for  the 
unification  of  the  world.  Where  the  Greek  tongue  was 
studied,  Greek  philosophy  might  go,  and  where  Greek 
philosophy  in  its  more  practical  ethical  form  went,  there 
to  some  extent  the  way  was  prepared  for  the  Gospel.  As 
Gement  of  Alexandria  said,  Greek  philosophy  was  a 
schoolmaster  to  lead  the  Gentiles  to  Christ,  as  the  Law 
was  for  the  Jews.2 

When  Jesus  was  born,  the  Greek  language  was  spoken 
from  Seleucia  on  the  Tigris  to  Rome  and  Puteoli,  from 
Pontus  and  Bithynia  to  the  cities  on  the  Nile.  When 
Jesus  was  born,  not  only  the  princes  of  the  world,  like 
the  sons  of  Herod  the  Great  and  the  grandsons  of  Au- 
gustus, but  also  great  numbers  of  the  prosperous  and 
great  numbers  of  the  common  people  throughout  the 
Roman  Empire,  with  the  partial  exception  of  the  Euro- 
pean provinces,  had  been  influenced  for  good  by  the 
ethical  and  religious  teaching  of  Greek  philosophy.  In 
respect  to  numbers  and  earnestness  the  preachers  of  that 
philosophy  have  been  compared  to  the  representatives  of 
the  Salvation  Army  in  England.3 

r  *  See,  e.g.,  Tacitus,  Agricola  4,  which  speaks  of  Marseilles  as  a  seat  of 
learning  where  the  refinements  of  Greece  were  happily  blended  with  the 
sober  manners  of  provincial  economy.  See  also  Mahaffy,  Greek  World 
under  Roman  Sway,  p.  21 5. 

*See  Stromato,   1,  5. 

•  See  Wendland,  op.  cit,  p.  43* 


94  THE   HISTORICAL   JESUS 

But  we  must  pass  on  from  Augustus  and  Hellenism 
to  sketch  some  other  features  of  the  stage  upon  which 
Jesus  entered  in  the  year  749  of  Rome.  Three  years 
before  the  birth  of  Jesus  Augustus  took  a  census  of 
Roman  citizens,  and  the  number  was  4,230,00a1  Some 
parts  of  the  Empire  were  more  densely  populated  then 
than  at  the  present  day,  but  this  was  not  the  rule.  In 
the  last  century  long-continued  wars  had  greatly  reduced 
the  population,  especially  of  Italy,  and  the  population  of 
Greece  had  been  declining  for  a  hundred  years  before  the 
battle  of  Actium.2  But  while  the  population  of  the 
Empire  as  a  whole  was  perhaps  not  above  one  half  of 
the  present  population  of  the  same  lands,  the  great  cities 
were  without  doubt  greater  than  their  successors  of  the 
twentieth  century.  Rome  and  Alexandria,  Jerusalem 
and  Antioch,  Seleucia  and  Ephesus  and  Corinth  were 
more  populous  than  any  cities  of  the  same  regions  at 
present.  If  we  strike  an  average  between  the  estimates 
of  Hecataeus  and  Tacitus,  the  population  of  Jerusalem 
was  seven  times  greater  then  than  now.3  As  to  Rome, 
Augustus  made  a  donation  to  320,000  in  his  twelfth 
consulship,  and  this  number,  as  it  was  exclusive  of  slaves 
and  of  children  under  twelve  years  of  age,  implies  a 
population  from  two  to  four  times  that  of  the  modern  city 
on  the  Tiber.*  To  judge  from  statements  in  Josephus 
and  Philo,  the  population  of  Alexandria  must  have  ex- 
ceeded that  of  any  city  of  Egypt  in  the  present  day.5 

The  world  into  which  Jesus  was  born  was  not  only  a 
world  of  great  cities,  but  it  was  also  a  world  of  human 
slavery.  This  conspicuous  feature,  though  more  familiar 
than  some  others,  demands  at  least  a  moment's  notice  in 
any  attempt  to  sketch  a  world-view  of  his  times. 

There  are  certain  broad  distinctions  between  modern 
slavery  and  that  which  prevailed  when  Jesus  was  born. 
The  modern  slave  was  a  negro,  wantonly  seized  and  torn 
from  his  African  home,  or  was  the  descendant  of  such  a 

1  See  Mon.  Ancyr.,  8. 

2  See  Mommsen,  Provinces  of  the  Roman  Empire,   i,  290. 

*  See  Bousset,  Vie  Religion  des  Judenthums,   1902,  p.  65. 

4  The  mean  between  the  estimates  of  Bunsen  and  Merivale  is  one  mil- 
lion. 

*  See  Josephus*  Jewish  War,  2,   18,  8,  and  Philo,   Contra  Flacrum*. 


THE  WORLD   IN   WHICH   JESUS  LIVED  95 

negro ;  in  the  time  of  Augustus,  slaves,  as  a  rule,  were  of 
the  races  that  inhabited  the  Roman  Empire — Syrians, 
Greeks,  Egyptians,  Germans,  Gauls,  Jews,  Illyrians, 
Parthians  and  Pannonians,  and  they  were  a  part  of  the 
prize  of  victorious  war.1  Thus  it  came  about  that  a  man 
might  own  a  slave  who  was  thoroughly  competent  to  teach 
his  children  Greek,  and  another  who  was  an  expert  musi- 
cian, and  yet  a  third  who  was  an  able  expounder  of  Greek 
philosophy.  Pliny  tells  us  of  a  slave  by  the  name  of 
Daphnus  who  was  sold  for  700,000  sesterces,  or  about 
$28,ooo.2  This  slave  was  a  noted  grammarian,  and  we 
can  readily  imagine  how  eagerly  millionaire  buyers  who 
wished  to  shine  in  society  as  the  owners  of  distinguished 
property  would  have  raised  their  bids  to  secure  him,  as 
some  modern  millionaires,  with  less  reason,  bid  against 
each  other  for  a  great  collection  of  autographs  or  snuff- 
boxes of  the  time  of  Louis  XIV.  Obviously  slaves  of 
such  note  and  value  were  few,  but  there  were  many  whose 
native  or  acquired  talents  made  them  most  serviceable 
to  their  owners,  and  of  the  great  mass  we  can  say  that 
they  were  not  separated  from  their  owners  by  any  such 
chasm  as  lay  between  the  modern  slave  population  and 
the  ruling  class. 

The  number  of  slaves  in  the  time  of  Augustus,  both  in 
country  and  in  city,  was  large.  Pliny,  whose  Natural 
History  contains  so  much  valuable  information  which  does 
not  strictly  belong  to  natural  history,  tells  of  a  certain 
Qaudius  Isodorus  whose  last  testament  disposed  of 
26^,000  head  of  cattle  and  41 16  slaves,  not  to  mention 
numerous  other  possessions.8 

Augustus  had  a  law  enacted  which  forbade  any  owner 
of  slaves  to  free  more  than  one  hundred,4  which  obviously 
suggests  that  a  good  many  Roman  citizens  owned  more 
than  a  hundred  slaves,  and  also  that  the  unlimited  eman- 
cipation of  slaves  in  ancient  Rome  and  Italy,  as  well  as 
in  the  United  States  in  the  nineteenth  century,  had  some 
serious  consequences. 

1  Plutarch  in  his  Life  of  Caesar  says  that  in  his  campaigns  in  the  North 
he  captured  one  million  people. 

:  See  Nat.  Hist.,   7.   40.  _     M  , 

1  See  Nat    Hist.    33,  47.  See  Gardthausen,  op.  cit.,  p.  909. 


96  THE   HISTORICAL  JESUS 

It  is  but  a  snort  step  from  the  slavery  of  Augustus'  day 
to  the  next  feature  which  invites  our  attention,  that  is, 
the  extreme  inequality  in  respect  to  outward  fortune 
which  characterized  all  society  in  the  Roman  Empire,  if 
we  except  rude  and  uncivilized  tribes.  The  great  middle 
class  of  modern  times,  who  have  neither  poverty  nor 
riches,  was  either  small  or  quite  lacking  when  Jesus  was 
born.  We  have  vivid  glimpses  of  the  wretchedness  of 
the  common  man  and  the  luxury  of  the  few.  The  veter- 
ans of  Augustus,  after  twenty  or  twenty-five  years  of 
service,  had  little  to  show  save  bent  and  scarred  forms. 
To  keep  them  from  absolute  want  Augustus  gave  them 
small  farms1 — a  gift  which  in  amount  at  least  is  riot  to 
be  distantly  compared  with  the  universal  pension  of 
American  soldiers.  The  condition  of  the  great  slave 
population,  whose  owners  had  a  legal  power  of  life  and 
death  and  who,  if  they  chose,  could  kill  a  slave  to  feed 
their  fish,  may  be  left  to  the  imagination.  Of  the  people 
in  great  cities  who  were  almost  always  on  the  verge  of 
starvation  the  number  was  certainly  much  larger  than  it 
is  today. 

That  there  was  vast  wealth  in  the  hands  of  a  few  in  the 
time  of  Augustus  is  perfectly  evident.  It  is  only  in  a  few 
rich  cities  of  our  own  prosperous  age  that  choice  building 
sites  bring  as  high  as  a  hundred  dollars  per  square  foot, 
but  it  is  estimated  that  the  land  on  which  Augustus 
erected  the  temple  of  Mars  cost  about  double  that 
amount.2  No  inconsiderable  number  of  millionaires  may 
safely  be  inferred  from  the  single  fact  that  Augustus  in 
the  last  twenty  years  of  his  reign  received  in  bequests  or 
in  gifts  from  the  living  the  sum  of  4,000  million  of 
sesterces,  or  about  $160,000,000.  Had  not  men  suc- 
ceeded in  amassing  enormous  fortunes,  and  had  they  not 
tasted  the  power  which  such  fortunes  confer,  we  should 
not  hear  Longinus  complaining  that  his  generation  "dei- 
fied" wealth.  But  the  rich  were  few,  the  masses  were 
poor,  and  the  gulf  between  was  wide.  There  are  glaring 
inequalities  of  fortune  today,  especially  in  great  cities, 


1  See  Mon.  Ancyr.,  16,   19. 

■  See  Gardthausen,  op.  cit.,  p.  972. 


THE  WORLD  IN   WHICH   JESUS  LIVED  97 

but  they  were  worse  in  the  world  of  Augustus,  not  merely 
in  Italy  but  also  throughout  the  East. 

There  was  another  feature  of  life  in  the  Roman  Empire 
when  Jesus  was  born  which  appealed  to  the  society  of 
that  day  and  fascinated  it  in  a  manner  to  which  the  pres- 
ent offers  no  parallel.  This  was  the  exhibition  of  mortal 
combats.  While  Hellenism  built  theaters  in  which  the 
works  of  the  great  poets  were  still  presented  and  stadia 
for  the  bloodless  contests  of  youth  and  for  the  chariot- 
race,  the  Roman  genius  built  the  amphitheater  where 
wild  beasts  with  each  other,  or  wild  beasts  with  men,  or 
finally  men  with  men,  fought  in  dead  earnest.  Augustus 
is  said  to  have  gone  beyond  all  men  in  the  number,  variety 
and  magnitude  of  his  solemn  shows,1  and  this  is  amply 
confirmed  by  the  famous  Ancyran  inscription.  "Three 
times  in  my  own  name,"  says  the  old  emperor  who  de- 
lighted to  play  with  little  children, — "three  times  in  my 
own  name  and  five  times  in  that  of  my  sons  and  grand- 
sons I  have  given  gladiatorial  exhibitions ;  in  these  exhi- 
bitions about  ten  thousand  men  have  fought.  Twenty- 
six  times  in  my  own  name,  or  in  that  of  my  sons  and 
grandsons,  I  have  given  hunts  of  African  wild  beasts  in 
the  circus,  the  forum,  the  amphitheaters,  and  about  3,500 
beasts  have  been  killed."2  He  does  not  say  how  many 
men  lost  their  lives  in  this  mad  conflict  with  3,500  African 
wild  beasts.  To  set  forth  the  lavish  manner  in  which  he 
had  entertained  his  subjects  it  was  enough  to  mention 
the  prodigious  number  of  wild  beasts. 

And  again  Augustus  says:  "I  gave  the  people  the 
spectacle  of  a  naval  battle  beyond  the  Tiber,  where  now 
is  the  grave  of  the  Caesars.  For  this  purpose  an  excava- 
tion was  made  1800  feet  long  and  1200  feet  wide.  In 
this  contest  thirty  beaked  ships,  triremes  and  biremes, 
were  engaged,  besides  more  of  smaller  size.  About 
3,000  men  fought  in  these  vessels  in  addition  to  the 
rowers."8  We  are  not  to  fancy  that  this  was  a  mock 
battle,  given  as  an  illustration  of  naval  tactics  like  the 

1  See  Suetonius,  Augustus,  43. 
'  See  Mon.  Ancyr.,  22. 
•  See  M on.  Ancyr.,  23. 

7 


98  THE   HISTORICAL  JESUS 

show  manoeuvres  of  modern  times.  Such  a  battle  would 
not  have  satisfied  the  Roman  people. 

How  insatiable  was  the  lust  of  witnessing  these  fierce 
combats  and  on  what  a  magnificent  scale  the  rulers  sought 
to  gratify  it  is  suggested  by  the  calamity  that  occurred  at 
Fidena  near  Rome.  The  amphitheater  at  this  place,  built 
by  Atilius  for  sordid  gain  and  not  with  a  worthy  muni- 
cipal ambition,  collapsed,  and  Tacitus  informs  us  that 
50,000  people  were  either  killed  or  injured.1  When  Jesus 
was  born,  there  were  massive  amphitheaters  in  the  cities 
of  the  East  as  well  as  in  Italy,  and  even  by  the  walls  of 
Jerusalem  there  was  one,  which  as  boy  or  man  he  doubt- 
less saw. 

When  Jesus  was  born,  the  belief  in  magic  and  miracles 
was  universal,  but  we  shall  not  dwell  on  this  feature  in 
the  present  survey.  That  belief  is  still  almost  universal. 
A  careful  observer  of  the  first  century  said  there  was  a 
stone  to  be  found  in  the  Nile,  resembling  a  bean,  which 
if  held  to  the  nostril  of  one  who  was  possessed  by  an  evil 
spirit,  would  expel  that  spirit.2  Today  thousands  of 
people  crowd  certain  churches  or  make  pilgrimages  to 
shrines  in  the  expectation  that  sacred  reliques  or  the 
Virgin  Mary  will  heal  their  diseases :  and  sometimes  they 
are  healed.  Likewise  in  the  ancient  time  evil  spirits  were 
doubtless  exorcized.  There  is  no  essential  difference 
between  the  two  cases.  From  this  whole  subject,  then, 
as  somewhat  familiar,  we  shall  pass  at  once  to  the  next 
vantage-point  of  our  world-survey. 

Within  the  large  circle  of  the  Roman  Empire,  over 
which  we  have  been  passing,  there  was  a  small  circle  to 
whose  general  condition,  when  Jesus  was  born,  we  must 
give  a  few  minutes'  attention.  Without  doubt  this  smaller 
circle — the  region  of  Palestine — is  better  known  than  the 
large  one ;  but  the  more  familiar  ways  we  will  either  avoid 
or  traverse  swiftly  that  we  may  have  time  for  ways  and 
facts  that  are  less  familiar. 

Herod  the  Great,  an  Idumean  with  a  Greek  name,  a 
Roman  citizen  by  birth,3  whose  ancestors  in  the  previous 

1  See  Tacitus,  Annals,  4,  62.  a  See  Plutarch's  Miscellanies,  5,  496. 

8  See  Josephus,  Antiq.,  14.8.3. 


THE   WORLD   IN    WHICH   JESUS   LIVED  99 

century  had  been  forced  to  accept  the  Jewish  law,1  was 
about  sixty-five  years  old  when  Jesus  was  born.  We 
read  in  Matthew  of  his  interview  with  the  wise  men  and 
the  subsequent  attempt  to  destroy  the  new-born  King  of 
the  Jews  by  the  indiscriminate  slaughter  of  all  the  male 
infants  in  Bethlehem.  This  scene — whether  historical  or 
legendary  we  will  not  stop  to  inquire — is  all  that  the  New 
Testament  tells  us  about  the  man  who,  as  Professor 
Mahaffy  says,2  was  the  most  interesting  Hellenistic  figure 
of  the  day.  We  may  have  read  in  Josephus3  of  Herod's 
proud  and  beautiful  wife  Mariamme,  and  how  he,  when 
his  mind  had  been  poisoned  by  false  whisperers,  had  her 
strangled,  and  then  in  an  agonizing  revulsion  of  feeling 
was  rendered  more  than  half  insane  by  his  crime  and 
loss.  We  may  have  read  in  the  same  author4  how  Herod's 
two  sons,  Alexander  and  Aristobulus,  educated  in  Rome 
and  not  without  noble  qualities,  were  executed  at  the 
command  of  their  father,  and  how,  when  he  himself  stood 
on  the  brink  of  the  grave,  his  hatred  of  another  son, 
Antipater,  held  death  at  bay,  as  it  were,  until  this  son  also 
was  destroyed.  We  have  heard  or  read  these  and  sim- 
ilar things,  and  we  think  of  Herod  the  Great  as  a  great 
monster.  But  there  is  another  side.  This  man  who  had 
ruled  Palestine  with  an  iron  hand  for  a  full  generation,5 
when  Jesus  was  born,  was  in  point  of  mental  power  and 
force  of  will  worthy  to  be  ranked  with  the  greatest  kings 
who  had  ever  wielded  the  scepter  in  Jerusalem.  He 
managed  his  cause  during  the  vicissitudes  of  the  Civil 
Wars  with  eminent  ability.  The  frankness  and  boldness 
with  which,  at  Rhodes,  he  met  Octavius,  now  the  master 
of  the  world,  evoke  admiration.0  So  in  like  manner  does 
the  fact  that  for  thirty-four  years  he  not  only  maintained 
himself  on  his  throne  in  the  midst  of  a  people  who  hated 
him  with  a  religious  hatred,  but  also  improved  the  material 
condition  of  that  people.  Again  and  again  he  remitted  a 
considerable  part  of  the  taxes  for  all  his  subjects.7     He 

1  Antiq.,  1 3-9-  »«  „ 

-—/Sec  Greek  World  under  Roman  Sway,  p.  171. 
/■See  Jew.  War,  1.22.2s;  Antiq.,  15.7-4;   15.7.6-7. 


A*  See  Antiq.,   16.4.1-6;  8.i-6;i  1.1-7;  Jew.   War,   1.23.7. 
•He  received  the  Kingdom  of  Palestine  in  37.  B.C. 
•See  Antiq.,  15.6.6.  T  See  Antiq.,  15.10.4;   16. 


2.4. 


IOO  THE   HISTORICAL   JESUS 

conceived  and  executed  large  plans  for  municipal  and 
national  improvement,  not  only  commercial  but  also 
aesthetic  and  religious.  He  gave  to  Jerusalem  its  first 
safe  and  commodious  sea-port  in  the  construction  of 
Caesarea.  He  crushed  the  robber  bands  of  Galilee.  He 
lionored  his  father  in  building  Antipatris  on  the  way  from 
Caesarea  to  Jerusalem,  and  his  brother  in  building 
Phasaelis  in  the  Jordan  valley.1  He  built  Sebaste  (Sama- 
ria) on  the  road  from  the  capital  to  Galilee.  If  he  built 
a  theater  and  an  amphitheater  at  Jerusalem  to  the  scan- 
.  dalizing  of  all  strict  Jews,8  he  also  erected  a  temple  to 
Jehovah  there  whose  magnificence  impressed  every  be- 
holder, even  in  an  age  of  extraordinary  buildings,  and 
whose  glory  passed  into  a  proverb.4 

Nor  was  the  kingly  beneficence  of  Herod  confined  to 
Palestine  and  the  Jews.  He  paved  with  marble  the  chief 
street  in  Antioch,  constructing  also  a  beautiful  colonnade 
on  either  side;8  he  restored  the  temple  of  Apollo  in 
Rhodes  at  great  cost  ;•  he  made  donations  to  the  inhabi- 
tants of  various  towns  on  the  coast  of  Ionia  and  Lycia; 
he  opened  his  purse  to  aid  in  the  building  of  temples,  or 
for  other  public  improvements,  in  Damascus  and  Tripoli, 
in  Byblus  and  Berytus,  Tyre  and  Sidon,  in  Athens  and 
Olympia,  in  Pergamum  and  Nicopolis.7  Most  of  this 
money  that  was  so  freely  lavished  on  public  works  far 
and  near  may  have  been  veritable  mammon  of  unright- 
eousness. We  know  as  little  how  it  was  amassed  as  we  do 
how  some  modern  Midases  have  amassed  their  fabulous 
riches :  we  speak  only  of  the  generous  and  wise  manner 
in  which  it  was  expended.  It  is  rather  startling  to  realize 
that  this  man  at  whose  domestic  crimes  the  blood  runs 
cold  and  whose  palace  in  his  last  years  may  well  have 
seemed  to  him  to  be  filled  with  the  ghosts  of  those  whom 
he  had  passionately  loved  and  as  passionately  sacrificed — 
that  this  man  was  also,  next  to  Augustus  Caesar  himself, 

1  See  Antiq.,   16.5.2. 

2  See  Antiq.,   16.5. 1;  Jew.  War,   1.21.2. 
*  See  Antiq.,   15.8.1;  15. 11. 1-7. 

4  See  Jew.  War,   1.21.1;  5.5.1-8. 

5  See  Antiq.,   16.5.3. 

6  See  Jew.   War,   1.2.21.11;  Antiq.,   16.5.3. 

7  See  Antiq.,   16.5.3;  Jew.  War.    1.21.8.11.12. 


THE   WORLD   IN   WHICH  JE£TJS  UVED       ,         JOI 

the  most  widely  influential  patron  Of  religiori  riot  Jorily  of 
his  own  generation  but  of  all  antiquity.  I  Such^  however, 
is  the  fact,  and  it  is  a  relief  tp  .ciiels ,  ieelirige  jto  tow 
something  of  Herod  the  Builder  if  one  must  know  Herod 
the  Destroyer. 

There  is  another  feature  of  the  Jewish  world  into  which 
Jesus  was  born  which,  though  unfamiliar  to  many,  is  of 
decided  interest  and  value,  that  is,  the  Hellenization  of 
the  Jews.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Herod,  whose 
father  is  said  to  have  been  a  servant  in  the  temple  of 
Apollo  at  Ascalon,  powerfully  promoted  this  introduction 
of  Greek  civilization  into  his  realm,  whether  as  a  matter 
of  simple  political  expediency,  or  because  it  appealed  to 
him  as  superior  to  the  narrow  illiberal  Judaism  of  his 
time,  we  need  not  now  inquire.  Nor  shall  we  seek  to 
answer  the  question  whether  in  promoting  the  introduc- 
tion of  Hellenism  Herod  was  a  true  furtherer  of  the 
highest  interests  of  the  Jewish  people  or  rather  a  corrupter 
of  their  life.  We  are  concerned  here  only  with  the  facts 
themselves. 

When  Jesus  was  born,  the  Greek:speaking  man — Greek 
in  blood  or  Syrian — was  a  familiar  figure  in  Palestine. 
There  were  towns  and  cities,  especially  on  the  western 
coast  and  beyond  Jordan,  that  were  largely  or  predom- 
inantly Greek.  Such  were  Caesarea  by  the  sea,  where 
Paul  was  a  prisoner  for  two  years,  Gaza  and  Anthedon, 
Samaria,  Gadara  and  Hippus.  The  erection  of  a  temple 
to  Augustus  in  Samaria1  and  another  at  Paneas2  is  clear 
evidence  of  the  presence  in  those  regions  of  a  non-Jewish 
population,  and  if  non- Jewish,  then  Greek-speaking. 
Likewise  the  existence  of  theaters  and  amphitheaters  at 
Caesarea,  Jericho,  Sebaste  and  Jerusalem3  argues  either 
the  presence  of  Greek-speaking  people  in  considerable 
numbers  or  the  wholesale  Hellenizing  of  the  Jews.  Prob- 
ably it  is  evidence  of  the  presence  of  some  people  who 
spoke  Greek  and  of  the  Hellenizing  of  some  Jews.  More- 
over the  party  of  the  Herodians,  who  approved  Herod's 
political  policy,  are  not  likely  to  have  frowned  on  his  pro- 

*See  Antiq.,  17.  8.  2.  , 

*See  Antiq.,   15.10.3.  "See  Antiq.,   15.8.6;   17.8.2;   16.5.1. 


102  THE   HISTORICAL   JESUS 

motion  of  closer  relations  with  Rome  and  the  great  world 
.by  /tie  introduction:  oS  Greek  and  Roman  amusements. 
-  Herod's ''court  too  was  thoroughly  Hellenistic.  His 
leading  adviser  was  a  Greek  from  Damascus,  another  was 
Eurycles  the  Spartan.1  His  sons  were  sent  to  Rome  to 
be  educated.2  To  judge  from  historical  examples  not  a 
few,  we  should  say  that  if  the  court  of  a  forceful  ruler 
like  Herod  was  Greek  in  its  tastes  and  customs,  in  speech 
and  dress  and  manner  of  life,  that  fact  would  not  be  with- 
out deep  influence  on  the  Jews,  to  break  down  their 
religious  prejudice  against  things  foreign. 

In  addition  to  these  facts — a  Hellenistic  court,  Greek 
and  Roman  games  and  shows,  Greek  architecture,  and 
the  presence  of  Greek-speaking  people  in  considerable 
numbers — there  was  a  steady  and  powerful  influence 
toward  Hellenism  flowing  from  contact  with  those  Jews 
who  came  from  all  parts  of  the  Empire  to  worship  at 
Jerusalem.  When  Jesus  was  born,  there  were  probably 
as  many  Jews  living  abroad  as  there  were  in  the  home- 
land, and  these  foreign  Jews  were  not  inferior  in  wealth 
to  those  of  Palestine.  They  remained  true  to  their 
paternal  faith,  but  they  were  liberalized.  It  was  a  com- 
mercial necessity  that  they  should  mingle  with  the  Gen- 
tiles, if  they  were  to  succeed.  It  was  necessary  to  learn 
the  tongues  of  the  Gentiles,  especially  Greek,  which  was 
spoken  or  understood  almost  everywhere.8 

Now  this  intimate  contact  with  Greek  civilization  had 
already  continued  several  generations  before  the  time  of 
which  we  speak.  Multitudes  of  Jews  therefore  spoke 
Greek  as  their  native  tongue,  just  as  multitudes  of  their 
descendants  in  New  York  today,  whose  fathers  came 
from  Russia  or  Poland,  speak  English  as  their  native 
tongue.  These  Jews  of  the  Dispersion  at  the  time  of 
Jesus'  birth,  when  they  returned  to  Jerusalem  and  met 
old  friends  or  made  new  ones,  inevitably,  though  often 
unconsciously,  sowed  the  seeds  of  that  Greek  civilization 
in  which  they  lived  and  moved.     They  could  not  have 


See    Jew.    War,    1.26.1;    Antiq.,    16.2.3;    I2.3.2J    Philo,    Ambassadors, 

3,3.  36. 

bee  Ant\q.,    15.10.1. 

See  Mahaffy,  op.  cit.,  p.  315. 


THE    WORLD    IN    WHICH    JESUS    LIVED  IO3 

helped  so  doing  any  more  than  the  Americanized  Italians 
or  Slavs  of  today,  when  they  return  to  their  old  homes 
can  help  carrying  with  them  certain  evidences  of  the  influ- 
ence of  our  republican  institutions. 

Thus  at  the  birth  of  Jesus  the  Jews  of  Palestine  had 
deeply  felt  the  influence  of  that  great  Hellenistic  move- 
ment which  began  with  the  campaigns  of  Alexander.  Its 
traces  were  evident  to  the  eye  as  one  journeyed  about 
the  country.  They  came  into  the  hand  as  often  as  one 
handled  a  gold  coin,  for  these  bore  the  image  of  Augustus 
and  came  from  his  mint  in  Rome,  or  when  one  passed 
the  more  common  coins  of  Herod  with  their  Greek  in- 
scriptions. Traces  of  that  movement  were  evident  to 
the  ear  on  the  streets  of  many  cities  and  towns.  And 
finally,  when  the  Jews  from  abroad  came  up  to  Jerusa- 
lem, bringing  rich  gifts  for  the  temple  and  with  minds 
broadened  by  contact  with  Greek  thought,  their  influence 
on  the  native  population  was  but  a  part  of  the  great 
process  of  Hellenization  which  Alexander  had  originated. 

Having  now  completed  our  too  rapid  survey  of  the 
world  at  the  birth  of  Jesus  it  remains  to  sketch  what 
was  happening  near  and  far  while  he  was  living  his  quiet 
life  in  Nazareth  and  then  for  a  little  space  was  setting 
in  motion  in  Galilee  and  Judea  those  forces  which  have 
given  its  greatest  distinction  to  all  subsequent  history. 

The  year  750  of  Rome,  or  4  B.C.,  was  momentous  for 
the  kingdom  of  Herod  the  Great.  His  death,  which 
occurred  in  the  spring  of  that  year,1  was  announced  to 
his  soldiers  in  the  amphitheater  at  Jericho,  in  which  city 
he  had  died;  there,  too,  his  will  was  read,  and  Archelaus 
his  son  was  acclaimed  king,  subject  of  course  to  the 
approval  of  Augustus.  When  the  dead  ruler,  borne  upon 
a  golden  bier  that  was  covered  with  purple  and  adorned 
with  precious  stones,  his  scepter  in  his  hand  and  a  crown 
of  gold  upon  his  head,  had  been  brought  up  the  steep 
road  from  Jericho  to  his  tomb  in  the  rugged  fortress  of 
Herodeum  a  few  miles  distant  from  Jerusalem,  followed 
fiyinbng  line  of  foreign  soldiers  and  these  followed  by 

1  Sec  Schurer,  Hist,  of  the  Jewish  People  in  the  Time  of  Christ,  Div.  i, 
voL  1,  p.  464.  Note  165. 


104  THE    HISTORICAL   JESUS 

five  hundred  servants  of  the  palace  bearing  spices,1  then 
began  a  period  of  terror  and  confusion  that  must  have 
filled  the  whole  land  with  dismal  forebodings.  Before  the 
sacred  feast  of  the  Passover  was  completed — one  won- 
ders whether  Joseph  and  Mary  were  present,  or  any  of 
their  neighbors  in  Nazareth — Archelaus,  to  suppress  the 
persistent  disturbances  of  the  multitude  about  the  temple 
slew  of  them  three  thousand  people.2  But  while  he  was 
in  Rome  seeking  to  secure  for  himself  his  father's  throne, 
matters  rapidly  went  from  bad  to  worse.  Sabinus,  the 
Roman  who  had  been  sent  to  manage  affairs  in  the 
interim,  plundered  the  temple,3  and  the  revolt  became 
more  bitter  and  wide-spread.  Discontent  with  the  gen- 
eral condition  of  things,  long  smothered,  now  shot  out 
lurid  flames  in  various  parts  of  the  land.4  The  report  of 
this  brought  down  Varus,  Governor  of  Syria,  with  an 
army  of  many  thousands.  The  city  of  Sepphoris,  a  few 
miles  north  of  Nazareth  and  visible  from  the  Nazareth 
hills,  was  given  to  the  flames  and  its  inhabitants  sold  into 
slavery.5  Thence  the  army  proceeded  to  Jerusalem,  and 
having  crushed  the  revolt  there,  companies  of  soldiers 
went  throughout  the  land  in  search  of  those  who  were 
suspected  of  being  favorable  to  the  revolution.  Of  such 
they  seized  and  crucified  two  thousand.8  It  is  not  im- 
probable that  some  crosses  were  set  up  in  Nazareth. 
Certain  it  is  that  Jesus  must  have  heard,  even  from  child- 
hood, of  this  Roman  mode  of  execution. 

Following  this  short  reign  of  terror  came  the  reestab- 
lishment  of  order  under  the  sons  of  Herod.  Galilee  and 
Perea  were  given  to  Antipas,  Judea,  Samaria  and  Idumea 
to  Archelaus,  the  region  to  the  north  and  east  of  Ga/ilee 
to  Philip,  while  one  city  in  the  Jordan  valley,  two  on  the 
western  sea  and  the  palace  in  Ascalon  went  to  Salome, 
sister  of  Herod  the  Great.7  Antipas,  to  whom  Jesus 
paid  taxes  as  a  citizen  of  Nazareth,  was,  like  Archelaus, 

1  Sec  Antiq.,  17.8. 1-4. 

1  See  Jew.   War,  2.1.3. 

•See  Antiq.,  17.9.3;  17.10.1-a. 

*  See  Antiq.,  17. 10.4-8. 

•See  Antiq.,  17. 10.9. 

•See  Antiq.,  17. 10.10. 

7  See  Antiq.,  17. 11. 4. 


THE   WORLD   IN   WHICH   JESUS   LIVED  10$ 

half  Samaritan  and  half  Idumean,1  while  Philip,  son  of  a 
Cleopatra  of  Jerusalem,2  was  probably  half  Jewish. 
Herod  the  Great,  like  Henry  VIII  of  England,  was  often 
married,  and  among  his  wives  were  at  least  one  Samari- 
tan, several  Jewesses,  and  possibly  two  or  three  Greeks. 

We  must  glance  at  each  of  these  sons  of  Herod.  Our 
interest  in  Philip  is  due  mainly  to  the  fact  that  certain 
important  events  in  the  life  of  Jesus  transpired  in  his 
domain.  He  was  a  person  of  moderation  and  quietness 
in  the  conduct  of  his  life  and  government.3  He  stayed 
among  his  own  subjects,  and  was  always  ready  to  settle 
disputes  between  man  and  man.  The  income  of  his 
domain  was  about  one  hundred  talents4 — somewhat  more 
than  one  hundred  thousand  dollars — and  as  Augustus 
restored  to  the  children  of  Herod  the  royal  bequest  which 
their  father  had  made  to  him,5  a  considerable  sum  must 
have  fallen  to  Philip.  Of  these  revenues  he  spent  large 
amounts  on  the  enlarging  of  Paneas,  where  his  father 
had  built  a  marble  temple  to  Augustus,  a  city  that  hence- 
forth bore  the  name  Caesarea  Philippi,  and  upon  the 
restoration  and  enlargement  of  Bethsaida,  a  town  on  the 
left  of  the  Jordan  at  its  entrance  into  the  Lake  of  Galilee, 
to  which,  in  honor  of  the  daughter  of  Augustus,  he  gave 
the  name  Julias.6 

Antipas,  of  whom  Jesus  was  a  subject  and  through 
whose  rash  vow  John  the  Baptist  came  to  his  death,  had 
double  the  income  of  Philip,7  but  lacked  his  moral  worth. 
He  intrigued  with  Herodias,  his  brother's  wife,  and  took 
her  as  his  own,  and  would  have  divorced  his  former  wife 
who  was  an  Arabian  and  a  king's  daughter  had  not  she, 
becoming  acquainted  with  his  plan,  fled  to  her  father 
Aretas,  whence  in  due  time  there  arose  a  war  for  Antipas 
and  with  it  great  loss.8  To  the  ambition  of  Herodias  it 
was  also  due  that  Antipas,  seeking  further  honor  from 
the  Roman  emperor  lost  what  he  had,  and  ended  his  life 
in  banishment  in  the  West.9     This  was  about  ten  years 

1  See  Antiq..  1 7. 1.3-  .  c        .  ±.  0 

•See  Jew.  War,  1.28.4.  'See  Anttq.,  18.2.1. 

•See  Antiq.,   18.4.6.  'See  Anttq.,  17.11.4- 

*  See  Antiq.,  17.11.4.  !§•«  4"&»  IS'5'1' 

•See  Antiq.,   17.11.S-  See  Anttq.,  18.7.1-2. 


Io6  THE   HISTORICAL   JESUS 

after  the  crucifixion  of  Jesus.  It  should  be  added  that 
Herodias,  though  having  an  opportunity  to  live  in  com- 
fort on  an  estate  in  Palestine,  chose  to  share  her  hus- 
band's exile. 

In  the  boyhood  of  Jesus  Antipas  resided  in  Sepphoris,1 
which  had  been  rebuilt  and  surrounded  with  strong  walls, 
and  it  would  be  strange  if  the  Nazareth  boy  never  saw 
him  as  he  came  or  went  with  his  princely  retinue.  Later, 
probably  in  the  young  manhood  of  Jesus,  Antipas  built  a 
royal  residence  on  the  south-west  of  the  Lake  of  Galilee, 
whose  stadium  and  splendid  marble  buildings  Jesus  must 
often  have  seen  at  a  distance,  even  if  he  never  entered 
the  city.2 

As  Antipas  was  worse  than  Philip,  so_Arche_lajjs  was 
worse  than  Antipas.  His  treatment  both  of  the  Jews  and 
the  Samaritans  was  so  barbarous,8  and  his  hand  so  heavy 
both  on  the  rich  and  the  poor,  that  the  chief  men  of  Judea 
and  Samaria  went  to  Rome  and  accused  him  to  the 
Emperor,  with  the  fortunate  result  that  he  was  stripped 
of  his  possessions  and  banished  to  Gaul.  This  took  place 
when  Jesus  was  about  eleven  years  old.  In  his  short 
reign  Archelaus  had  built  a  magnificent  palace  in  Jericho, 
had  set  out  a  large  grove  of  palms  north  of  that  city  for 
which  he  provided  an  artificial  system  of  irrigation,  and 
had  built  a  town  that  bore  his  own  slightly  modified 
name,  Archelais.4  This  town  and  palm-grove  and  palace 
must  have  been  familiar  sights  to  Jesus. 

With  this  glance  at  the  men  who  came  into  power  in 
Palestine  when  Jesus  was  a  very  young  child,  we  shall 
turn  to  some  happenings  afar  off,  remembering  always 
the  close  contact  of  Palestine  with  the  city  of  Augustus 
on  the  Tiber. 

An  important  event  marked  the  year  2  B.C.,  when  Jesus 
was  about  three  years  old.  The  temple  of  Mars  in  Rome, 
purposed  by  Julius  Caesar  and  vowed  by  Octavius  before 
the  battle  of  Actium,6  an  edifice  which  had  been  eighteen 
years  in  process  of  erection  and  on  which  untold  riches 

1  See  Antiq.,   18.2. i;  Josephus,  Life,  67. 

*See  Antiq.    18.2.3;  Jew.  War,  2.7.3. 

•See  Jew.   War,   2.7.3. 

•See  Antiq.,   17.13.1.  "See  Gardthausen,  op.  cit.,  pp.  971-972. 


THE   WORLD   IN    WHICH   JESUS   LIVED  I07 

had  been  lavished,  was  solemnly  dedicated  in  August  of 
that  year.  In  its  magnificence  and  in  the  costliness  an3 
"beauty  of  its  adorning  it  might  compare  with  the  temple 
of  Jehovah  in  Jerusalem  which  Herod  the  Great  had  be- 
gun to  build  at  about  the  same  time  that  Augustus  began 
his  temple  to  Mars.1  Treasures  of  Greek  statuary  in 
bronze  and  marble,  some  of  which  were  centuries  old,  and 
paintings  by  Apelles,  gave  to  its  stately  halls  the  charm  j 
of  rich  antiquity. 

In  his  Ode  on  the  Nativity  Milton  fancies  that  all  the 
gods  of  the  peoples  felt  the  "dreaded  hand"  of  the  infant 
Jesus,  and  fled  away  as  shadows  before  the  sun.  But  this 
was  hardly  more  than  a  fancy.  Mars,  the  god  of  war,  to 
whom  this  magnificent  temple  was  consecrated  in  the 
infancy  of  Jesus,  not  to  mention  other  gods  and  goddesses 
to  whom,  under  Augustus,  new  and  beautiful  temples 
arose,  seems  not  to  have  felt  the  "dreaded  infant's  hand." 
On  the  contrary,  there  went  forth  from  this  very  temple, 
in  26  A.D.,  that  procurator  Pontius  Pilate  who  issued 
the  death-warrant  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.1 

Coming  forward  three  years,  to  i  A.D.,  when  Jesus 

was  about  five,  we  hear  the  applause  at  Olympia  when 

Tiberius  the  future  Emperor  won  the  chariot-race,3  not 

as  modern  kings  and  great  men  win  similar  races  by 

means  of  high-salaried  jockeys,  but  by  his  own  skill  and 

brawn.     To  this  man,  who  was  to  succeed  Augustus, 

J  Pilate  must  have  reported  the  execution  of  a  Jewish  pre- 

I  tender  and  two  robbers,  if  indeed  this  was  considered  a 

I  matter  of  sufficient  note  to  be  reported  to  the  Emperor. 

The  year  6  A.D.,  when  Jesus  was  now  a  boy  of  about 

eleven,  was  one  the  events  of  which  must  have  deeply 

impressed  his  young  mind.     It  was  the  year — as  we  have 

seen — that  Archelaus  was  summoned  to  Rome  to  answer 

his  accusers  before  Caesar.     It  was  also  the  year  when  J 

\Judea,  and  so  Jerusalem  with  the  holy  temple,  came  under 

the  direct  control  of  Roman  procurators,  which  form  of 

government  continued,  with  the  exception  of  four  years 

/under  Agrippa  I  (41-44  A.D.),  until  the  outbreak  of  the 


/ 


1  See  Antiq.,  15.11.1.  2  See  Suetonius,  Augustus,  29^ 

•See  Gardthausen,  op.  cit,  1:3,  p.  MIX. 


108  THE   HISTORICAL  JESUS 

I  war  that  ended  with  the  complete  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem. Of  these  Roman  rulers  there  were  five  during  the 
life-time  of  Jesus.1 

Again,  it  was  in  6  A.D.  that  Cyrenius,  Governor  of 
Syria,  made  an  assessment  of  the  property  of  all  the  peo- 
ple of  Palestine.2  Joseph  the  carpenter  must  have  been 
visited  by  some  agent  of  Cyrenius,  to  whom  he  was 
obliged  to  declare  what  goods  and  property  he  possessed. 
This  visit  of  the  assessors  Jesus  would  naturally  have 
followed  with  boyish  curiosity. 

But  this  year  when  Jesus  was  eleven  was  memorable 
for  another  and  even  more  exciting  event.  On  an  almost 
inaccessible  rocky  height  on  the  south-east  shore  of  the 
Lake  of  Galilee  was  perched  the  city  of  Gamala.8  From 
this  place  sprang  a  certain  Judas*  to  whom  the  Roman 
assessment  seems  to  have  come  as  a  trumpet-call  to  arise 
and  deliver  his  people  from  the  foreign  yoke.  This  man 
with  a  companion  named  Sadduc  are  dignified  by  the 
Jewish  historian  as  the  founders  of  a  philosophical  sect,5 
whose  philosophy,  however,  seems  to  have  consisted 
chiefly  in  the  belief  that  they  ought  to  be  free  from  foreign 
rule  and  that  they  would  be  free  at  all  costs.*  Men  of 
Galilee  rallied  to  the  standard  of  Judas,  only  to  be  cut 
down  and  dispersed  by  the  Romans.7  He  did  not  see  the 
day  of  deliverance,  but  the  movement  which  he  inaugu- 
rated— the  party  of  the  Zealots  which  he  called  into  exis- 
tence— went  forward,  Josephus  says,8  until  the  nation 
was  infected  to  an  incredible  degree.  There  can  be  little 
doubt  that  Jesus,  living  in  Galilee  where  zealotism  was 
strongest,  often  heard  men  talk  of  Judas  and  of  his  way 
of  getting  free  from  Rome;  and  it  is  a  fact  of  great 
interest  that  he  not  only  refused  to  be  carried  away  by 
this  movement  for  immediate  political  liberty,  but  that  he 

1  They  were  Coponius  (6  A.D.-?),  Marcus  Ambivius  (?-io  AD.),  Annius 
Rufus  (10-14  A.D.),  Valerius  Gratus  (14-26  A.D.)  and  Pontius  Pilate 
(26-36  A.D.). 

3  See  Antiq.,   17. 13. 5;   18.1.1;   18.2.1. 

■  See    Jcu:    War,    4.1.1. 

*  See  Antiq.,   18.1.1-6;  Jew.  War,  2.8.1. 
8  See  Antiq.,   18.1.1. 

•  See  Antiq.,   18. 1.6. 
T  See  Acts  5:37. 
•See  Antiq.,  18.1.x. 


THE  WORLD  IN  WHICH  JESUS  LIVED  TOO, 

also  found  one  of  his  twelve  apostles  among  the  adherents 
of  Judas  of  Gamala.1 

In  14  A.D.,  when  Jesus  was  nineteen  years  old  and  at 
work  as  a  carpenter,  the  news  came  to  Nazareth  that  the 
old  Emperor,  who  for  more  than  fifty  years  had  been  the 
dominant  genius  of  the  Roman  world,  had  passed  away.2 
In  the  following  months  Jesus  may  have  heard  how  the 
spirit  of  Augustus  had  been  seen  ascending  from  the 
funeral  pyre  to  heaven,8  and  of  the  magnificent  temple 
which  was  being  erected  in  Rome  for  his  worship.4  For 
with  the  death  of  Augustus,  his  worship,  hitherto  mainly 
confined  to  the  eastern  provinces,  became  a  part  also  of 
the  religious  life  of  the  Latin  people.  The  historian 
Tacitus  informs  us  that  a  temple  and  divine  worship 
were  decreed  for  Augustus  immediately  after  his  death.5 
Soon  a  college  of  priests,  twenty-five  in  number,  sacred 
to  the  deity  of  Augustus,  was  established  to  have  charge 
of  his  worship.6 

When  Herod  the  Great  died,  the  people  of  Palestine 
rejoiced ;  when  Augustus  died,  the  Roman  people  and  all 
the  provinces  built  temples  for  his  worship.  If  the  name 
of  Jesus  is  mentioned  the  world  over  in  connection  with 
the  feast  of  December  twenty-fifth,  so  the  name  of  Au- 
gustus is  mentioned  as  often  as  we  name  the  eighth  month 
of  the  year.  We  may  well  credit  the  statement  of  the 
historian  Suetonius  when  he  says  that  Augustus  had  a 
"pair  of  clear  and  shining  eyes  in  which  was  seated  a 
kind  of  divine  vigor."7  He  fulfilled  a  lofty  mission  in 
his  day,  and  for  centuries  his  name  far  outshone  that  of 
Jesus;  but  now  the  student  of  history  can  see  that  the 
most  abiding  significance  of  his  great  work  lay  in  the  fact 
that  it  was  contributory  to  the  spread  of  Christianity. 
Velleius  Paterculus,  writing  a  few  years  after  the  death 
of  Augustus,  refers  to  that  event  in  these  significant 
words :  "Whereas  we  had  dreaded  the  total  ruin  of  the 

1  See  Luke  6:15. 

■Augustus  died  Aug.  19. 

•See  Gardthausen,   1:3,  pp.   1276-1277. 
/••See  Velleius  Paterculus,  Rom.  Hist.,  2,  130. 
**See  Annals,   1:  also  Eutropius,  op.  cit.,  7,  10. 
'  *  •  See  Tacitus,  Annals,   1. 
-*  See  his  Augustus,  79. 


1 


IIO  THE  HISTORICAL  JESUS 

world,  we  did  not  perceive  that  it  felt  the  slightest 
shock."1  This  suggests  one  way,  perhaps  the  supreme 
one,  in  which  Augustus  unconsciously  cooperated  with 
Jesus.  He  established  order  throughout  the  Roman 
Empire  so  firmly  that  it  survived  his  death  and  remained 
unshaken  for  centuries. 

It  does  not  concern  us  to  speak  at  length  of  Tiberius, 
the  step-son  of  Augustus,  who  was  ruler  of  the  Roman 
world  in  the  latter  part  of  the  life  of  Jesus  and  for  some 
years  beyond  his  death.  Only  what  Tacitus  says2  of  his 
attitude  toward  the  question  of  erecting  altars  and  temples 
for  his  worship,  as  had  been  done  in  the  case  of  Augustus, 
shall  be  noticed.  Tiberius  said  that  he  had  at  first  fol- 
lowed the  example  of  the  deified  Augustus  and  had  al- 
lowed the  cities  of  Asia  to  render  him  worship,  but  had 
decided  that  to  allow  the  extension  of  this  worship  in  all 
places  would  denote  a  vain  spirit  and  a  heart  swelled 
with  ambition.  "I  am  a  mortal  man,"  he  said;  "I  am 
confined  to  the  functions  of  human  nature ;  and  if  I  well 
supply  the  principal  place  among  you,  it  suffices  me. 
Posterity  will  do  abundant  right  to  my  memory  if  they 
shall  believe  me  to  have  been  worthy  of  my  ancestors, 
watchful  of  the  Roman  state,  unmoved  in  perils,  fearless 
of  private  enmities."  These  sentiments  are  not  unworthy 
of  a  king.  This  was  the  man  in  whose  honor  Antipas 
named  his  new  capital  by  the  Lake  of  Galilee,  that  city 
which  probably  brought  nearest  to  Nazareth  the  splendor 
of  Greek  architecture  and  the  excitement  of  the  Greek 
and  Roman  amusements.8 

Tacitus  says4  that  the  appointments  of  Tiberius  could 
not  have  been  better,  but  one  wonders  what  the  outcome 
of  the  ministry  of  Jesus  would  have  been  had  Tiberius 
sent  as  procurator  to  Judea,  in  the  place  of  Pilate,  a 
man  who  was  not  only  capable  of  recognizing  the  inno- 
cency  of  Jesus,  as  Pilate  did,  but  who  also  had  the  courage 
and  strength  to  acquit  the  innocent 

1  See  his  Rom.  Hist.,  2,  124. 
/    a  See  Annals,  4. 

■  Sepphoris   was   nearer   to    Nazareth   than    was   Tiberias,    and   as   it    was 
at   first   the  capital,   there   may   have   been  a  theater   and  an  amphitheater 
there. 
/*  See  Annals,   4. 


/ 


/ 


THE   WORLD   IN    WHICH    JESUS    LIVED  III 

^  And  now  our  survey  of  what  transpired  in  the  life- 
time of  Jesus  has  little  further  to  record.  An  echo  of  the 
calamity  which  befel  "twelve  noble  cities  of  Asia,"1  over- 
thrown by  an  earthquake  in  a  single  night  in  the  year 
1 6  A.D.,  when  Jesus  was  about  twenty-one  years  old,  may 
well  have  reached  Nazareth,  as  also  a  report  of  the  death 
of  the  noble  Germanicus  at  Epidaphne  near  Antioch  in 
i§  A.D.,  and  of  the  pomp  with  which  his  ashes  were 
borne  the  following  spring  from  Brundusium  to  Rome 
and  there  received  with  universal  sorrow.  The  name  of 
Germanicus  reminds  us  again  that  the  world  of  Jesus' 
day  was  not  barren  either  of  able  or  of  worthy  men.2 

In  the  year  29  A.D.,  in  which  we  assume  that  the 
ministry  of  Jesus  terminated,  there  died  in  Rome  at  the 
age  of  more  than  eighty  the  foremost  woman  of  that 
time,  Livia,  wife  of  Augustus  and  mother  of  Tiberius. 
The  Roman  people  would  have  accorded  her  divine 
honors,  like  those  accorded  to  Augustus,  had  not  Tiberius 
objected.8  There  were  coins,  minted  in  her  life-time, 
that  bore  her  image  and  the  title  "goddess."  She  was 
faithful  to  her  husband,  and  like  him  lived  very  simply, 
though  possessed  of  great  wealth  in  her  own  name.  Like 
the  "worthy  woman"  of  Hebrew  literature,  she  sought 
wool  and  flax  and  worked  willingly  with  her  own  hands. 
Strength  and  dignity  were  her  clothing.  She  gave  lib- 
erally for  education  and  to  provide  marriage  portions 
for  poor  girls.4 

That  there  were,  serious  defects  in  her  character, 
judged  from  our  point  of  view,  is  quite  obvious.  She 
allowed  a  divine  name  to  be  given  to  her,  and  she  was 
strongly  suspected  of  using  unworthy  means  in  securing 
the  succession  to  her  son  Tiberius;  but  judged  by  the 
standards  of  her  time  and  people  she  was  eminent  in 
respect  to  character  as  well  as  ability.  It  would  have 
seemed  the  extreme  of  folly  had  one  who  was  acquainted 
both  with  Livia  and  with  the  Jewish  teacher  who,  in  the 
year  of  her  death,  was  crucified  with  malefactors,  made 

1  See  Annals,  2. 
p*See  the  judgment  of  Tacitus,  Annals,  2. 
;-•*  See  Annals,  5. 

*See  Annals,  5;  also  Gardthausen,  op.  cit.,   its,  pp.   1018-1030. 


112  THE  HISTORICAL  JESUS 

bold  to  mention  the  two  together  as  belonging  to  the 
same  class  of  world-benefactors,  and  as  destined  alike  to 
an  enduring  fame.  But  now  she  is  "divine"  only  on  the 
ancient  coins  in  museums  of  history,  while  the  teaching 
and  spirit  of  that  Jewish  carpenter  are  the  inspiration 
and  the  goal  of  the  ruling  nations  of  the  world. 

A  few  words  in  conclusion  comparing  the  world  into 
which  Jesus  was  born  with  that  in  which  we  live.  Polit- 
ically that  world  was  a  unit,  while  the  same  geographical 
boundaries  include  today  a  part  of  the  territory  of  six 
great  European  and  Asiatic  powers.  These  are  now  at 
peace,1  but  are  prepared  for  war  with  standing  armies 
several  times  as  large  as  that  which  sufficed  for  Augustus. 
He  dedicated  an  altar  of  Peace  on  the  fourth  of  July,  741, 
eight  years  before  Jesus  was  born :  the  nations  among 
whom  his  empire  is  now  divided  helped  to  establish  the 
Permanent  Court  of  Arbitration  at  the  Hague  on  July 
twenty-nine,  1899,  and  they  seek  to  promote  peace  by  an 
amount  of  intelligent  public  opinion  and  by  an  interna- 
tional organization  to  which  the  Roman  world  in  Jesus' 
day  did  not  offer  the  remotest  parallel. 

Industrially  that  world  into  which  Jesus  was  born  en- 
joyed a  large  measure  of  prosperity,  which  in  Palestine 
and  Syria,  in  Asia  Minor  and  Mauretania,  far  surpassed 
what  those  lands  can  show  at  the  present  time. 

Socially  that  world,  though  made  acquainted  with  the 
idea  of  human  brotherhood  by  the  teaching  of  the  Greek 
philosophers,  was  a  world  in  which  the  institution  of 
slavery  was  conspicuous,  and  in  wrhich,  excepting  the 
Germans  and  the  Jews,  people  paid  little  respect  to  the 
marriage  bond.  But  slavery  is  no  longer  found  within  the 
borders  of  the  Empire  of  Augustus,  and  as  for  domestic 
virtue  it  is  safe  to  say  that  public  opinion  even  in  Turkey, 
Egypt  or  Persia  would  not  tolerate  in  high  officials  what 
Roman  society  jested  over  in  Augustus'  day. 

Intellectually  the  condition  of  the  world  in  Jesus'  day 
was  not  wholly  unworthy  to  be  compared  with  the  present 
condition  throughout  the  same  regions.     The  small  class 

1  Since  these  words  were  written,  war  has  been  waged  between  Italy  and 
Turkey. 


THE  WORLD  IN   WHICH   JESUS   LIVED  II3 

who  were  trained  in  philosophy  and  law,  in  literature  and 
art,  were  probably  the  equals  of  their  successors  of  the 
present  day ;  but  the  technical  schools,  as  that  for  math- 
ematics at  Alexandria  and  those  for  medicine  in  the  Greek 
islands,  have  been  surpassed  both  in  method  and  in 
knowledge  by  institutions  of  our  time  within  the  ancient 
realm  of  Augustus.  As  regards  the  intelligence  and 
culture  of  the  mass  of  the  people,  the  present  average  in 
some  parts  of  the  former  Roman  Empire,  as  western 
Germany,  France,  Switzerland  and  Austria  south  of  the 
Danube,  is  probably  much  higher  than  the  average  in  any 
considerable  part  of  the  Augustan  world. 

Religiously  the  world  of  Jesus'  day  offers  a  parallel 
and  a  contrast  to  the  same  region  at  the  beginning  of  the 
twentieth  century.  Religious  rites  and  writings  filled 
as  large  a  place  in  the  public  mind  then  as  they  do  now. 
The  highest  type  of  pagan  ethics  and  life  of  the  period 
with  which  we  are  occupied,  as  seen,  for  example,  in 
avia  and  Germanicus,  Agrippa,  Maecenas  and  Plu-\ 
'tarch,  might  bear  comparison  with  the  best  types  of  Chris-  \ 
■tian  ethics  and  life  to  be  found  in  the  realm  where 
Augustus  ruled.  Now  as  then  there  is  a  large  element 
of  superstition  in  religious  thought  and  life,  whether  we 
look  at  Mohammedanism  which  dominates  the  eastern 
and  southern  parts  of  the  old  Roman  Empire  or  at  the 
Christianity  which  is  prominent  in  its  western  part. 

But  there  is  a  contrast  as  well  as  a  parallel.  The 
larger  part  of  the  population  of  the  Roman  Empire  when 
Jesus  was  born  believed  in  the  existence  of  many  gods, 
while  the  entire  present  population  of  the  same  region 
believes  in  the  existence  of  one  God  only.  Again,  the 
religious  propaganda  of  that  age,  though  characterized 
by  great  earnestness  and  perseverance,  especially  among 
the  Jews  and  the  preachers  of  Greek  philosophy,  when 
compared  with  the  religious  propaganda  in  the  same 
regions  today,  presents  a  significant  contrast.  The  Jew- 
ish missionary  brought  his  convert  into  the  synagogue 
and  to  the  reading  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  both  he  and 
the  preacher  of  Greek  ethics  failed  to  conserve  and 
accumulate  the  fruits  of  their  labors.  At  present  there  is 
8 


114  THE   HISTORICAL  JESUS 

a  religious  propaganda  in  the  region  where  Augustus 
once  ruled,  represented  by  such  institutions  as  Robert 
College  in  Constantinople,  which  is  of  a  far  different 
sort.  It  has  an  assurance  of  faith  that  is  born  of  many- 
generations  of  triumphant  labor  and  has  a  breadth  of  out- 
look which  was  wanting  to  that  earlier  propaganda.  It 
builds  great  institutions  that  are  sure  to  multiply  them- 
selves in  coming  time.  It  has  appropriated  the  wisdom 
of  the  past  and  the  results  of  modern  science,  and  is 
making  them  contribute  to  the  realization  of  the  ideal  of 
Christian  manhood. 

In  our  last  word  we  turn  from  the  world  of  Jesus'  day 
to  the  spread  of  the  Jesus'  faith  in  our  own  day.  The 
Roman  Empire  was  not  a  tenth  as  large  as  our  modern 
world,  and  probably  had  not  more  than  a  twentieth  as 
many  inhabitants.  Out  of  this  ten-fold  larger  modern 
world  might  be  carved  two  empires,  each  as  vast  as  that 
of  Augustus,  the  genius  of  whose  civilization  is  insepar- 
able from  the  historical  work  of  Jesus ;  and  throughout 
the  remaining  region,  eight  times  as  large  as  the  Roman 
world,  wherever  the  quickening  of  life  is  deepest  and 
most  hopeful,  and  the  outreaching  after  better  things  is 
most  determined,  there  too  this  movement  appears  to  be 
related  to  the  message  of  Jesus  as  the  effect  is  related  to 
its  cause. 


CHAPTER  II 
ORIGIN  AND  EARLY  LIFE 

Back  of  the  earliest  Gospel  was  the  Logia — that  col- 
lection of  the  words  of  Jesus  which  is  preserved  for  us 
in  Matthew  and  Luke,  and  to  this,  as  the  most  ancient 
documentary  source  of  Christianity,  we  first  turn  for 
light  on  the  Master's  birth  and  private  life.  And  we 
turn  to  it  as  a  source  which  is  peculiarly  sacred  and  full 
of  authority.  If  Jesus  himself  gives  us  any  information 
on  his  parentage  or  private  life,  that  should  be  regarded 
as  final;  if,  however,  he  is  silent,  that  fact  also  is  of 
primary  importance. 

Now  we  might  expect  in  advance  that  such  a  document 
as  the  Logia  would  contain  some  direct  references  to  the 
past  life  of  Jesus  and  some  references  also  that  were 
indirect.     We  find,  however,  on .  examination  that  this 

f  collection  of  the  Lord's  words  contains  no  direct  allusion 
whatever  to  his  parentage,  or  his  birth,  or  to  any  single 
specific  incident  of  his  private  life.1 

There  are,  however,  in  the  Logia  many  words  which 
may  have  a  certain  indirect  autobiographical  value.  It 
is  not  to  be  supposed  that  the  inner  spiritual  life  of  Jesus 
was  radically  different  after  his  baptism  from  what  it  had 
been  before.  His  response  to  the  summons  of  the  Bap- 
tist and  the  assurance,  received  at  the  Jordan,  that  he 
was  called  to  the  Messianic  office,  gave  a  new  expression 
to  his  life — turned  it  into  a  new  channel — but  as  far  as  we 
know  did  not  alter  its  quality  or  change  its  method  either 
of  acquiring  or  of  using  truth.  We  are  to  suppose,  then, 
that  the  public  teaching  of  Jesus  was  deeply  rooted  in  his 
private  life,  that  it  was  not  something  that  came  to  him 

1  Mt.  10:36  is  reminiscent  of  Micah  7:6,  but  even  if  one  sees  in  it  an 
autobiographical  allusion  (cf.  Mk.  6:4),  it  does  not  necessarily  refer  back 
to  Jesus'  private  life. 

US 


Il6  THE   HISTORICAL  JESUS 

with  the  Jordan  experience.  It  was  the  outcome  of 
many  years  of  thought,  many  years  of  walking  with  God 
in  the  obscure  period  before  his  baptism.  It  was  then 
that  he  stored  up  those  deep  observations  of  the  ways  of 
men  which  mark  his  teaching,  then  that  he  pondered  the 
forms  and  processes  of  the  natural  world  and  learned  to 
speak  in  parables,  then  that  he  gained  his  mastery  of  the 
principles  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  then  that  he 
reached  conclusions  on  the  need  of  his  people  and  the 
unsatisfactoriness  of  the  ministry  in  synagogue  and 
temple,  then  that  he  learned  to  trust  God  and  not  be 
anxious,  then  that  he  discovered  the  secret  of  living  and 
attained  true  peace,  then,  in  short,  that  he  was  prepared 
to  see  the  heavens  opened  and  to  hear  a  voice  out  of 
heaven  saying,  "Thou  art  my  beloved  Son." 

If  then  the  public  teaching  of  Jesus,  that  is,  its  funda- 
mental principles  rather  than  its  details,  flowered  out  of 
his  past  life,  we  should  expect  to  find  that  many  of  his 
words  look  as  though  born  of  his  own  experience,  and 
that  is  what  we  do  find.  When  his  disciples  asked  him 
to  teach  them  to  pray  as  John  also  taught  his  disciples,1 
and  he  in  response  gave  them  a  form  of  prayer,  it  is  most 
natural  to  see  in  this  the  ripe  fruit  of  his  own  experience. 
When  he  made  the  birds  of  the  heaven  and  the  lilies  of 
the  field  teach  deep  lessons  of  life,2  when  he  spoke  of 
different  ways  of  building,8  when  he  declared  the  power 
of  faith4  and  the  certainty  that  he  who  asks  shall  receive,6 
when  he  invited  others  to  share  his  yoke  and  burden,6  he 
was  giving  glimpses  into  his  own  past  life.  So  in  like 
manner  when  he  contrasted  his  own  appearance  with 
that  of  John  the  Baptist  and  said  that  the  Son  of  Man 
came  eating  and  drinking,7  he  intimated  that  his  life  had 
been  that  of  a  normal  man.  The  illustrations  that  he 
employed  in  his  teaching  indicate  that  he  had  lived  in  the 
country  rather  than  in  the  city,  and  with  the  poor  rather 
than  with  the  rich.8 

*Lk.   11:2-4.  *Mt.  17:20. 

aMt.  6:26-30.  *Mt.   7:8. 

•  Mt  7:24-27.  «Mt.   11:28. 

TMt  11:19. 

8  See  in  addition  to  the  passages  just  cited  Mt  7:9-10;  8:20;  9:37-38;  10: 
16,  29;  12:33,  34;  18:12-14;  24:28. 


ORIGIN   AND  EARLY   LIFE  II7 

But  while  the  light  which  these  passages  throw  on  the 
private  life  of  Jesus  is  of  great  value,  it  does  not  enable 
one  to  write  a  history  or  even  a  sketch  of  those  years. 

It  was  said  above  that  the  Logia  contains  no  direct 
allusion  to  the  parentage  or  birth  of  Jesus.  There  is, 
however,  a  word  of  Jesus  found  in  all  the  synoptists 
which,  whether  it  stood  in  the  Logia  or  not,  is  of  unques- 
tioned genuineness,  and  which  does  allude  to  his  family. 
This  is  Mark  3:33-34  (Matt.  12:48-50;  Lk.  8:21).  The 
word  is  inseparable  from  the  preceding  incident.  The 
mother  and  brothers  of  Jesus  had  come  where  he  was 
teaching,  apparently  in  or  near  Capernaum,1  and  sending 
to  him  in  the  house  asked  him  to  come  forth.  He  said  in 
reply  that  those  who  were  seated  about  him,  listening  to 
his  words,  were  his  mother  and  his  brothers.  He  admitted 
a  physical  kinship  with  those  who  stood  outside  and  who 
requested  him  to  come  forth,  but  he  set  this  over  against 
a  kin-hip  of  spirit.  This  is  the  only  direct  allusion  to  his 
Tamily  made  by  Jesus  in  the  synoptic  Gospels,  and  it  is 
significant.  It  gives  no  names,  but  we  learn  from  it  that 
Jesus  belonged  to  a  family  of  several  members,  and  that 
they  were  not  in  sympathy  with  his  present  course  of 
action.  This  passage,  however,  does  not  necessarily 
imply  that,  before  Jesus  came  forward  as  a  public  teacher, 
there  had  been  lack  of  harmony  between  him  and  his 
home  circle.  The  change  in  his  outward  life  was  so 
radical  and  surprising  in  its  nature  that  it  obviously 
might  disturb  the  most  friendly  relationships. 

This  solitary  passage  therefore  in  which  Jesus  alluded 
to  his  family  does  not  throw  any  clear  light  into  the  past 
beyond  the  information  that  he  had  a  mother  and  brothers. 
From  the  circumstance  that  a  father  is  not  mentioned 
here  we  must  not  draw  too  large  a  conclusion.  The 
silence  would  be  explicable  if  the  father  was  no  longer 
alive,  but  this  single  passage  by  itself  does  not  justify 
us  in  saying  that  he  was  dead.  We  may  find  some  sup- 
port for  that  view  elsewhere,  but  now  we  are  concerned 
simply  with  words  that  are  attributed  to  Jesus  himself. 
These  words  would  allow  us  to  suppose  that  the  father 

1  Mk.  3:20,  margin  of  Rev.  Ver. 


Il8  THE   HISTORICAL   JESUS 

was  alive,  but  was  not  willing  to  share  in  the  attempt 
which  his  wife  and  sons  were  making  to  turn  Jesus  from 
his  public  work.  We  must  therefore  leave  this  point  for 
the  present  unsettled. 

There  is  another  word  of  Jesus,  recorded  by  all  the 
synoptists,  which  demands  consideration  in  this  connec- 
tion because  of  its  bearing  on  his  lineage.  The  various 
factions  that  were  opposed  to  him  had  been  trying  him, 
on  a  certain  occasion,1  with  crafty  question — first  the 
Herodians  with  the  Pharisees,  then  the  Sadducees,  and 
finally  a  scribe.  When  the  questions  thus  raised  had 
been  disposed  of,  Jesus  in  his  turn  asked  a  question,  which 
concerned  the  descent  of  the  Messiah.  He  began  with  a 
reference  to  the  view  of  the  scribes  who  traced  the  Mes- 
siah's genealogy  to  David.2  He  then  quoted  from  Ps. 
no,  which  was  regarded  as  Messianic,  and  asked  how 
:One  whom  David  had  called  "Lord"  could  be  his  "son." 
j  He  seems  to  have  regarded  this  as  an  unanswerable  ques- 
tion, and  as  a  plain  refutation  of  the  view  of  the  scribes. 

But  what  was  the  aim  of  Jesus  in  these  words?  Was 
it  to  set  forth  his  own  belief  regarding  the  descent  of  the 
Messiah,  or  was  it  to  silence  those  who  were  asking  ques- 
tions which  were  more  academic  than  vital?  We  are 
told  that  he  once  silenced  the  leaders  in  the  temple  by  a 
question  in  regard  to  the  baptism  performed  by  John.8 
It  is  possible  that  on  this  occasion  also  his  primary 
motive  was  to  silence  the  adversaries.  For  Jesus  must 
have  known  that  there  are  certain  Old  Testament  pas- 
sages which  clearly  involve  the  Davidic  descent  of  the 
Messiah,  e.g.,  Mic.  5:2;  Is.  97;  11  :i,  and  we  are  hardly 
justified  in  supposing  that  he  set  all  these  aside  in  favor 
of  an  apparently  counter  statement  in  Ps.  no.  But  if 
the  chief  motive  of  Jesus  was  to  silence  his  opponents 

1  See  Mk.  12:13-17  (  =  Matt.  22:13-22;  Lk.  20:20-26);  Mk.  12:18-27 
(=Matt.  22:23-33;  Lk.  20:27-38);  Mk.  12:28-34  (=Matt.  22:34-40;  Lk.  20: 
39-40,    10:25-28). 

2  Mk.  12:35.  Mt.  22:41  ascribes  this  view  to  the  Pharisees,  and  Lk.  does 
not  directly  intimate  who  the  holders  of  it  were  (20:41).  The  N.  T.  writings 
nowhere  directly  espouse  a  different  view  of  the  Messiah's  descent.  See 
Mt.  1:1;  Lk.  1:27,  69;  Jn.  7:42;  Rom.  1:3;  2  Tim.  2:8;  Rev.  5:5;  22:16. 
However,  since  the  Davidic  lineage  always  carries  the  idea  of  the  Messiah 
as  a  ruler,  those  passages  in  which  he  is  thought  of  as  the  trophct  of  Dt. 
18:15  turn  us  away  from  Davidic  descent  rather  than  toward  it. 

sMk.   11:30. 


ORIGIN   AND   EARLY   LIFE 


119 


and  put  an  end  to  idle  questions,  then  we  can  hardly  use 
this  verse  as  a  clear  proof  of  his  belief  that  the  Messiah 
was  not  of  Davidic  descent.  But  if  we  allow  it  any  bear- 
ing whatever  on  his  thought  of  his  own  lineage,  we  must 
admit  that  it  is  against  his  claiming  to  be  in  the  Davidic 

Jink1. 

It  is  easy  to  sum  up  all  the  information  that  Jesus  him- 
self gives  us  in  regard  to  his  origin.  He  refers  to  a 
mother  anj^brothers,  and  his  general  teaching  suggests 
tHat  his  private  life  had  been  spent  in  the  country,  in 
contact  with  men,  especially  those  of  the  humbler  sort, 
and  that  it  had  been  a  normal  life  IFwe  consider  that 
the  reference  to  mother  and  brothers  was  called  out  by 
circumstances  over  which  Jesus  had  no  control,  we  see 
that,  as  far  as  the  synoptic  record  informs  us,  he  had 
nothing  to  say  to  his  disciples  either  about  his  origin  or 
his  early  life.  We  must  infer,  then,  that  he  did  not  con- 
sider it  important  for  his  disciples  that  he  should  talk 
with  them  on  these  subjects. 

But  we  are  not  yet  through  with  the  historical  data 
which  concern  the  life  of  Jesus  prior  to  his  public  min- 
istry. We  have  considered  the  Logia  and  some  other 
words  of  Jesus.  We  now  turn  to  the  earliest  evangelist 
and  ask  what  light,  if  any,  he  throws  upon  the  subject. 

Mark  begins  with  the  work  of  John  the  Baptist  and  his 
first  reference  to  Jesus  (1:9)  is  that  he  came  from 
Nazareth  of  Galilee  to  John's  baptism.  He  makes  no 
allusion  in  this  place  to  his  earlier  life  nor  to  his  parentage. 
Later,  in  the  account  of  the  early  Galilean  career  of  Jesus, 
Mark  records,  as  we  have  seen,  the  incident  of  the  mother 
and  brothers  of  Jesus,  but  evidently  not  for  the  sake  of 
making  his  readers  acquainted  with  the  origin  and  family 
of  his  hero.  In  the  rest  of  his  narrative  there  is  one 
other  passage  which  incidentally  relates  to  the  home  and 
private  life  of  Jesus.  This  is  the  account  of  a  visit  which 
Jesus  made  in  Nazareth.2     We  learn  from  this  that  the 

1  The  fact  that  Jesus  seems  to  have  allowed  men,  on  one  occasion  at 
least,  to  address  him  as  "Son  of  David"  (Mk.  10:47;  Lk.  18:38;  Mt.  20:30) 
has  no  significance  for  the  question  of  his  physical  descent.  This  term  was 
a  popular  equivalent  of  "Messiah." 

aMk-  6:1-6;  Mt.  13:53-58;  cf.  Lk.  4:16-30. 


120  THE   HISTORICAL  JESUS 

mother  of  Jesus,  like  the  sister  of  Moses,  bore  the  name 
Miriam  or  Mary,1  that  he  was  a  member  of  a  large  family, 
hence  a  family  which,  according  to  the  Hebrew  concep- 
tion, Jehovah  had  signally  blessed,2  and  that  there  was 
nothing  in  the  position  or  history  of  this  family — nothing 
known  to  the  people  of  Nazareth — which  justified  the 
public  appearance  of  one  of  its  members  as  a  teacher  in 
Israel.  For  his  neighbors  would  not  have  spoken  as  they 
did — "Whence  hath  this  man  these  things? ...  Is  not  this 
the  carpenter,  the  Son  of  Mary?" — if  Jesus  had  been  a 
pupil  of  the  rabbis  and  had  been  trained  by  them  in  the 
interpretation  of  the  Scriptures,  for  obviously  in  that  case 
his  appearance  as  a  teacher  need  have  occasioned  no  sur- 
prise. This  passage  has  a  bearing  also  on  the  claim 
which  was  made  at  a  later  time,  that  Jesus  was  descended 
from  David.  If  it  had  been  known  to  the  people  of 
Nazareth  that  the  family  of  Joseph  was  of  the  royal 
Davidic  lineage,  they  could  hardly  have  been  so  greatly 
astonished  at  the  assumption  qi  a  public_iple  by  a  mem- 
ber of  that  family.  These  words  therefore  afford  strong  / 
i  evidence  that  the  Nazarenes — people  who  were  acquainted 
I  with  Joseph's  family — knew  nothing  of  its  Davidic 
descent. 

But  the  question  may  be  raised  whether,  if  the  life  of 
Jesus  in  past  years  had  been  just  like  the  common  life  of 
Nazareth,  the  people  would  have  regarded  his  appear- 
ance in  the  new  role  with  such  indignation,  and  would 
not  rather  have  taken  pride  in  the  fact  that  one  of  their 
number  had  become  famous.  It  may  not  be  wrong  toj 
'  infer  from  the  warmth  of  their  opposition  to  him  that  his 
life  had  not  been  just  like  theirs,  but  that  by  a  superior 
moral  quality  and  perhaps  by  an  aggressive  righteousness 
it  had  silently  or  otherwise  made  them  feel  that  they  were 
not  approved  by  Jesus  and  thus  made  them  hostile 
toward  him.  But  this  cannot  be  stated  with  positiveness. 
It  will  be  noticed  that  this  incident  recorded~by  Mark 
and  Matthew  goes  somewhat  further  than  those  words 
of  Jesus  which  we  have  considered.     We  now  hear  not 

1  Mt.  writes  it,  as  in  the  Septuagint  of  Ex.   15:20,  Mapta/i. 
3  See,  e.g.,  Ps.  127:3-5' 


ORIGIN   AND  EARLY   LIFE  121 

only  of  a  mother  and  brothers  but  their  names  are  given, 
the  number  of  brothers  is  mentioned,  reference  is  made 
also  to  sisters,  and  most  important  of  all,  we  are  told  that 
Jesus  was  a  carpenter.1  This  last  item  of  information, 
though  not  directly  supported  by  anything  in  the  Gospels, 
is  not  therefore  to  be  questioned.  It  accords  with  the 
words  of  Jesus  in  this  respect  that  they  also  point  to  a 
background  of  humble  life.  It  is  the  first  specific  fact 
fhat  we  have  found  regarding  his  private  life  on  its 
external  side,  and  it  is  also  the  only  one  we  have.  We 
may  almost  forgive  the  people  of  Nazareth  their  unbelief 
if — as  seems  to  be  the  case — we  should  not  otherwise  have 
known  that  Jesus  was  a  carpenter. 

The  earliest  Gospel  affords  us  no  further  light  on  the 
origin  or  private  life  of  Jesus.  Even  this  that  it  gives  is 
wholly  incidental.  The  author  has  no  desire  to  instruct 
his  readers  on  this  subject.  His  writing  is  devoted  ex- 
clusively to  the  Lord's  public  ministry.  Now  this  fact 
would  be  significant  even  ff^TToiew  nothing  of  Mark's 
sources;  it  is  the  more  significant  when  we  remember 
that  one  of  his  sources — perhaps  the  chief  one — was 
Peter.  This  apostle,  one  of  the  most  intimate  friends  of 
Jesus,  is  likely  to  have  known  whatever  Jesus  said  at  any 
time  about  his  early  life,  and  had  Peter  in  his  teaching 
communicated  any  information  on  this  subject,  it  is  prob- 
able that  Mark  would  have  preserved  it.  Therefore 
Mark's  silence  naturally  suggests  that  Peter  also  was 
silent. 

We  are  now  at  the  end  of  our  historical  data  in  regard 
to  the  origin  and  the  early  life  of  Jesus.2  They  are 
meagre,  perhaps  disappointing  to  some  readers,  but  they 
are  harmonious  with  the  known  career  of  Jesus,  and 
they  contain  one  element  that  must  be  more  and  more 
satisfying  as  it  is  duly  weighed.  We  say  that  these 
meagre  data  are  harmonious  with  the  known  career  of 
Jesus.  That  he  came  from  Nazareth  of  Galilee,  that  he  / 
was  a  carpenter  by  trade,  that  his  townsmen  knew  nothing   2^ 

1  On  Matthew's  modification  of  Mark's  language  see  Part  I,  1F  7.  P-  18. 
*  The  first  two  chapters  of  Matthew  and  the  first  three  of  Luke  must  be 
considered  elsewhere.     See  Part  III,  chapter  I. 


122  THE  HISTORICAL  JESUS 

of  his  past  life  or  of  his  family  which  justified  his 
appearance  as  a  public  teacher,  that  he  was  a  member  of  <y 
a  large  family  and  had  lived  in  contact  with  men  rather  / 
than  as  a  recluse — all  these  circumstances  are  in  intimate 
accord  with  the  well  known  facts  of  the  public  life  of 
Jesus.  Thus  the  statement  that  he  came  from  the  small 
and  obscure  town  of  Nazareth  agrees  well  with  such  facts 
as  that  he  chose  his  disciples  from  the  humbler  walks  of 
life,  that  he  knew  how  to  get  near  to  the  lowest  and  to 
attract  them,  and  that  the  rabbis  from  the  first  looked 
askance  upon  him  as  an  unqualified  and  unauthorized 
teacher.  That  he  was  a  Galilean  accords  well  with  the 
fact  that  nearly  the  whole  of  his  public  ministry  was 
passed  in  Galilee  and  Perel ;  that  his  townspeople  knew 
of  nothing  remarkable  in  his  past  life  or  in  the  position 
of  his  family  is  in  harmony  with  the  fact  that  in  his  work- 
he  relied  neither  on  great  claims  nor  on  striking  acts, 
but  on  the  quiet  force  of  truth ;  and  finally,  that  he  had 
lived  in  contact  with  men  agrees  well  with  such  facts  as 
his  knowledge  of  all  sorts  of  character  and  his  reliance  on 
the  influence  of  personal  fellowship  rather  than  on  written 
words. 

These  data  are  fit  though  meagre.  And  it  must  never 
be  forgotten  that  this  meagreness  expresses  the  wish  of 
the  Master  himself;  that  he  did  not  speak  to  his  disciples 
about  his  parentage  and  early  life;  that,  so  far  as  they 
were  concerned,  his  own  past  was  simply  ignored.  We 
may  therefore  rest  assured  that  in  the  judgment  of  him 
who  was  the  wisest  of  teachers  a  knowledge  of  that  past 
was,  for  his  disciples,  neither  necessary  nor  even  desir- 
able. The  time  soon  came  when  the  imagination  of  well 
meaning  Christians  began  to  fill  out  that  initial  blank- 
page,  and  different  persons  did  it  in  different  ways.  It 
will  be  well  for  the  Church  when  it  learns  to  distinguish 
between  what  the  Master  said  of  himself  and  what 
others,  even  in  very  ancient  times,  said  about  him. 


CHAPTER  III 
ENTRANCE  INTO  PUBLIC  LIFE 

That  which  drew  Jesus  from  the  deep  privacy  of 
Nazareth,  and  brought  about  the  great  crisis  of  his  life, 
was  a  wide-spread  and  profound  religious  movement, 
originated  by  John  the  Baptist.  Of  this  man  and  his 
work  we  have  some  definite  information  in  the  Logia. 
Indeed,  it  seems  that  this  ancient  document  began  with 
some  account  of  John's  appearance  and  preaching,  for 
Mt.  3:12  and  Lk.  3:17  imply  that  some  such  statement 
preceded  in  the  Logia  as  we  have  in  Mark  1  :y-S.  From 
this  initial  statement  we  learn  that  John  was  an  effective 
preacher  of  repentance,  and  also  that  he  announced  a 
successor  who  was  mightier  than  he  and  of  far  greater 
dignity,  one  who  would  judge  Israel  and  divide  the 
wheat  from  the  chaff.1 

A  second  passage  in  the  Logia  leads  us  to  our  most 
important  source  of  information,  for  it  gives  Jesus'  own 
estimate  of  the  Baptist.  The  preacher  of  repentance  was 
now  in  prison.2  A  report  of  the  deeds  of  Jesus  reached 
him,  and  he  sent  asking  Jesus  the  direct  question,  "Art 
thou  the  coming  one,  or  are  we  to  look  for  another?"3 
To  this  question  Jesus  did  not  answer  with  yes  or  no, 
but  indirectly.  He  bade  the  messengers  report  to  John 
what  they  saw  and  heard.4  The  imprisoned  man  would 
thus  be  in  as  favorable  a  position  to  judge  of  Jesus  as 
other  people  were.  But  we  are  told  that  Jesus  summed 
up  what  was  seen  and  heard  in  words  borrowed  from 
certain  Messianic  passages  of  the  Old  Testament,5  adding 
a  beatitude  for  those  who  should  find  no  occasion  of 

>Mt  3:7-10,   12;  Lk.  3:7-9,  17. 
'Mt.    11:2;   Lk.  3:20. 
•Mt.  11:3;  Lk.  7:19. 
*Mt.  11:4;  Lk.  7:22. 
•See,  e.g.,  Is.  35:5;  61:1. 

123 


124  THE   HISTORICAL   JESUS 

stumbling"  in  him.1  Then  to  the  multitude  who  were 
present  Jesus  bore  witness  concerning  John,2  from  which 
witness  it  appears  that  he  had  drawn  people  into  the 
"wilderness"  to  hear  him,  as  the  triple  tradition  narrates  ;s 
also  that  he  was  the  messenger  of  whom  Malachi  had 
spoken  (Mai.  3:1),*  and  that  he  was  thus  of  more  than 
prophetic  rank ;  but  that,  notwithstanding  all  this  great- 
ness which  belonged  to  him,  he  was,  in  the  thought  of 
Jesus,  less  than  the  least  in  the  kingdom  of  God.  Jesus 
left  this  paradox  unillumined,  but  they  who  knew  of 
John's  present  condition  and  of  his  anxious  question  had 
a  clue  to  his  meaning. 

Then,  a  little  later,  when  characterizing-  the  present 
generation,  Jesus  drew  an  illustration  from  John's  mode 
of  life  which  further  helps  us  to  form  a  true  idea  of  the 
man.  He  said  that  John  came  neither  eating  nor  drink- 
ing,6 that  is,  he  lived  an  ascetic  life,  which  may  have 
seemed  to  him  to  be  demanded  by  the  nature  of  his  preach- 
ing and  by  the  nearness  of  judgment.  That  this  mode  of 
life  was  declared  by  some  to  be  a  proof  of  demonic 
possession6  suggests — what  is  not  elsewhere  intimated — 
that  there  was  sharp  criticism  of  John  in  certain  quarters. 

To  this  sketch  of  the  Baptist  which  is  contained  in  the 
Logia  later  documents,  though  adding  some  details  con- 
cerning his  dress  and  external  fortunes,  added  nothing  in 
regard  to  his  character.  It  is  only  a  filling  out  of  the 
picture  of  an  ascetic,  marks  of  which  we  have  found  in 
the  Logia,  when  it  is  said  that  John  was  clad  in  a  hair 
garment  with  a  leather  girdle.7  The  statements  too  that 
he  had  disciples  and  that  they  were  in  the  habit  of  fasting8 
are  quite  in  accord  with  the  Logic  A  man  such  as  Jesus 
there  described  would  be  sure  to  have  a  following,  and 
the  ascetic  quality  of  his  life  would  naturally  be  imitated. 

1  Mt.   11:5-6;  Lk.  7:22-23. 

2  Mt.    11:7-11;  Lk.  7:24-28. 

*  Mk.   1:4;   Mt.  3:1;  Lk.  3:2. 

*  This  thought  recurs  in  Sit.  11:14  and  is  hinted  at  in  Mk.  9:11.  Here 
belongs  also  the  obscure  word  of  Mt.  11:12-13;  Lk.  16:16,  for  it  represents 
John  as  the  end  of  the  old  era. 

•Cf.   Mk.   1:6;  Mt.  3:4. 

6  Matt.  11:18;  Lk.  16:33. 

TMk.   1:6;  Mt.  3:4. 

•Mk.  2:18;  Mt.  9:14;  Lk.  s:33. 


ENTRANCE   INTO   PUBLIC   LIFE  I25 

The  statement  in  all  the  synoptists  that  John  was  uni- 
versally regarded  as  a  prophet  (i.e.,  by  the  populace  of    £ 
Jerusalem)1  shows  unmistakably  that  his  influence  had  < 
been  felt  in  the  capital,  but  adds  nothing  to  our  knowl- 
edge of  the  man.     The  story  of  John's  tragic  fate,  given 
most  fully  in  Mark  (6:14-29)  and  more  briefly  in  Mat- 
thew (14:1-12),  is  in  substance  quite  in  accord  with  the 
Logia.     He  is  there  said  to  be  in  prison,  here  we  read    y 
that  he  was  beheaded  by  command  of  Herod  Antipas.2      / 

And  finally,  the  scattered  references,  direct  and  indi- 
rect, to  the  extent  and  depth  of  John's  influence  say  no 
more  than  is  implied  in  the  Logia.  Mark  says  that  all 
Judea  and  all  the  people  of  Jerusalem  went  forth  to  John's  ) 
baptism  (1:5),  to  which  Matthew  adds  "the  country 
about  the  Jordan"  (3:5) — an  expression  that  naturally 
includes  a  part  of  Perea.  Luke's  statement  (3:3)  that 
he  came  into  all  the  region  about  the  Jordan  is  the  most 
moderate  of  all. 

Quite  different  but  perhaps  equally  significant  is  the 
fact  that  when  Jesus  himself  was  at  the  height  of  his 
popularity  some  people  said  that  he  was  the  Baptist  come 
to  life.  Herod  is  reported  to  have  spoken  thus,3  and  the 
triple  tradition  ascribes  the  same  belief  to  a  part  of  the 
community  at  large.4  But  this  belief,  as  a  measure  of 
the  greatness  of  John,  does  not  go  beyond  the  word  of 
Jesus  when  he  declared  that  John  was  more  than  a 
prophet. 

Luke  has  two  sayings  regarding  John  which  appear  to 
be  drawn  from  a  good  source:  they  are  at  least  in  har- 
mony with  the  outline  of  the  Logia.  Thus  the  words  of 
John  contrasting  his  baptism  with  that  of  his  successor 
are  introduced  by  a  statement  to  the  effect  that  all  men 
were  reasoning  in  their  hearts  whether  this  great 
preacher  might  not  be  the  Christ,5  and  again  in  his  intro- 
duction to  the  Lord's  Prayer  he  represents  the  disciples 
as  saying,  "Teach  us  to  pray,  as  also  John  taught  his 

1  Mk.  11:30;  Mt.  21:25;  Lk.  20:4. 

'Josephus,  Antiq.,  18.5.2,  puts  the  execution  in  Machaerus  on  the  north- 
east of  the  Dead  Sea. 
»Mk.  6:16. 

4Mk.  8:28;  Mt.  16:14;  Lk.  9:19- 
•Lk.  3:15,  cf.  John  1:19. 


126  THE   HISTORICAL  JESUS 

disciples."1  This  latter  saying,  in  harmony  with  Mk. 
2:18,  indicates  that  John  organized  his  converts  and 
sought  to  provide  for  their  religious  welfare.2 

These  data,  if  one  point  be  excepted,  present  a  con- 
sistent outline  of  John  and  his  work.  That  one  point  is 
the  characterization  of  the  baptism  which  was  to  be 
introduced  by  John's  successor.  According  to  Mark  this 
baptism  was  to  be  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  Matthew 
and  Luke  add  to  this  description  the  words  "and  with 
fire."3  There  seems  to  be  good  reason  for  holding  that 
Mark's  language  shows  the  influence  of  Christian  bap- 
tism, and  that  the  original  antithesis  was  not  "water"  and 
"spirit,"  but  water  and  "fire."  Thus  the  preaching  of 
John  as  preserved  in  the  Logia  points  not  to  grace  but  to 
judgment,  not  to  the  gentle  sanctifying  influence  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  or,  to  speak  according  to  Joel,  not  to  him  as 
the  giver  of  visions  and  dreams,  but  to  wrath,  to  an 
axe  at  the  root  of  the  tree,  to  the  fan  of  the  threshing- 
floor  and  to  fire  unquenchable.4  This  symbolism  is  not 
consistent  with  a  reference  to  the  Holy  Spirit  in  Mark 
1 :8,  but  suggests  that  the  term  which  the  Baptist  used 
was  "fire."  The  change  to  "Spirit"  is  natural  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  baptism  by  Jesus,  that  is,  the  baptism  that 
was  practiced  by  his  followers,  proved  to  be  a  baptism 
with  the  Spirit  of  God.  What  we  see  here  illustrates  a 
tendency  that  is  often  manifest  in  New  Testament  writ- 
ings, viz.  a  tendency  to  let  early  Christian  history  influ- 
ence the  narrative  of  the  origin  of  Christianity.  The 
beginning  is  viewed  in  the  light  of  later  events. 

The  addition  of  "fire"  to  the  description  of  the  Mes- 
siah's baptism  in  Matthew  and  Luke  may  well  have  been 
made  under  the  influence  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 
This  event,  foretold  by  Jesus,  was  regarded  by  Paul  and 
doubtless  by  many  others  as  a  judgment  on  the  Jewish 
people.5     In  any  case  Matthew  and  Luke  make  the  bap- 

»Lk.   11:1. 

3  Acts  18:25;  19:3  suggest  that  John's  organization  preserved  his  personal 
influence  through  a  considerable  period  and  among  people  who  lived  far 
from  the  scene  of  his  labors. 

8Mk.  1:8;  Mt.  3:11;  Lk.  3:16. 

4  Mt.  3:7,  10,  12;  Lk.  3:7,  9,  17. 
6  I  Thess.  2:16. 


ENTRANCE   INTO   PUBLIC   LIFE  12J 

tism  which  John  announced  for  his  successor  a  two-fold 
one — a  baptism  with  fire  for  the  impenitent  and  a  baptism 
with  the  Spirit  for  the  penitent. 

On  the  basis  of  the  data  which  have  been  presented  we 
can  form  an  idea  of  the  occasion  which  summoned  Jesus 
from  the  quiet  of  Nazareth.  A  prophet  of  great  power 
had  appeared  in  Israel.  Though  an  ascetic,  calling  peo- 
ple forth  into  waste  places  to  hear  him,  he  was  not  an 
idle  dreamer  who  laid  the  stress  in  his  preaching  on  the 
glories  of  a  coming  age,  and  he  was  not  a  political 
reformer  who  like  the  Zealots  would  break  off  the  foreign 
yoke  and  restore  the  scepter  to  Israel  by  violence.  He 
called  on  people  to  turn  from  their  sins  and  to  live 
righteously.  The  motives  which  he  used  in  making  this 
appeal  for  right  living  carried  it  home  with  tremendous 
force.  The  kingdom  of  God  was  at  hand,  he  declared, 
and  only  they  were  to  enter  it  who  could  abide  the  day  of 
judgment.  What  specific  meaning  John  attached  to  the 
words  "Kingdom  of  God"  we  cannot  know.  Clearly, 
whatever  it  was,  that  kingdom  was  for  good  men  only, 
for  those  who  ceased  to  do  evil  and  learned  to  do  well. 
The  fact  that  John's  preaching  deeply  stirred  ^  Israel, 
especially  southern  Palestine,  is  evidence  that  the  kingdom 
whose  nearness  he  announced  was  regarded  as  in  some 
way  the  fulfilment  of  the  hope  of  a  Golden  Age.  It  is 
not  likely  that  the  preacher  and  his  audience  pictured  the 
kingdom  of  God  to  their  minds  in  the  same  form  and 
color,  but  to  all  alike  it  was  something  from  God  and 
something  far  better  than  their  present  lot. 

With    the    near   kingdom   was    associated    in   John's 
thought  the  one  "mightier"  than  he,  the  coming  one  of 
Hebrew  prophecy  and  hope.     The  only  function  of  the. 
coming  one  of  which,  according  to  our  sources,  John 
spoke  to  the  people  was  that  of  judge.     It  is  evident  from  \ 
the  Logia  that  he  had  not  thought  of  the  Messiah  as  one  f 
who  would  do  such  works  as  Jesus  afterward  did.1 

From  what  specific  source  John  had  drawn  the  con- 
viction that  the  Messiah  was  at  hand,  and  that  the  king- 
dom of  God  was  soon  to  be  made  manifest,  we  have  no 

»Mt  11:2;  Lie.  7:18. 


128  THE   HISTORICAL   JESUS 

means  of  ascertaining.1  Probably,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
old  prophets,  it  rested  on  a  study  of  God's  dealing  with 
Israel  in  the  past  and  a  study  of  the  present  condition  of 
his  people. 

The  Logia — so  far  as  that  document  can  be  recon- 
structed from  Matthew  and  Luke— contained  no  direct 
allusion  to  the  baptism  of  Jesus.  It  did,  however,  con- 
tain two  passages  which  have  a  bearing  on  that  event. 
There  is  first  the  lofty  praise  which  Jesus  bestowed  on 
John.2  If  he  regarded  John  as  Elijah  and  his  baptism 
as  from  heaven,  that  is  at  least  favorable  to  the  supposi- 
tion that  he  himself  had  been  baptized  by  John. 
Further,  the  story  of  the  temptation  of  Jesus,  which  stood 
in  the  Logia,  seems  to  imply  some  such  experience  as  is 
described  in  the  synoptic  account  of  the  baptism  of  Jesus. 
For  the  repeated  statement  of  Satan  "If  thou  art  the  Son 
of  God"  obviously  presupposes  that  Jesus  did  so  consider 
himself;  but  if  he  so  considered  himself,  and  if  this 
thought  was  the  gateway  by  which  temptation  suddenly 
assailed  him,  then  it  points  to  some  recent  experience  by 
which  Jesus  had  come  to  think  of  himself  as  the  Son 
of  God.  Thus  the  Logia,  though  without  a  direct  trace 
of  the  baptism  of  Jesus,  is  not  only  consistent  with  the 
synoptic  account  of  his  baptism,  but  in  one  passage 
actually  presupposes  an  experience  such  as  the  synoptists 
associate  with  the  baptism  in  the  Jordan. 

The  triple  tradition  of  the  Jordan  baptism  is  confined 
to  a  single  verse.8  It  serves  merely  as  a  vestibule  by 
which  we  enter  into  the  transcendent  experience  of  Jesus 
after  he  had  come  up  out  of  the  river.  This  subordina- 
tion is  most  clearly  marked  in  Luke,  for  he  does  not  even 
give  the  baptism  as  an  independent  fact  but  dispatches  it 
in  a  participial  clause.4 

The  one  affirmation  in  which  all  three  narratives  agree 
is  that  Jesus  was  baptized  by  John.     There  is  no  sugges- 

>  *  Luke's  story  of  the  birth  of  John  with  its  claim  of  relationship  between 
his  mother  and  the  mother  of  Jesus  is  inseparable  from  his  story  of  the 
nativity  of  Jesus  (1:36).  It  may  be  noted  here  that  the  author  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel  seems  not  to  have  known  of  this  relationship   (1:33). 

2  Mt.  11:7-11;  Lk.  7:24-28.     Compare  Mk.  11:30;  Mt.  21:25;  Lk.  20:4. 

•  Mk.  1:9;  Mt.  3:13;  Lk.  3:21.  On  Mt's  addition  (3:14-15),  see  Part  L 
pp.   26-27.  *  li^rou  fiawTurOivros. 


ENTRANCE   INTO  PUBLIC  LIFE  120, 

tion  that  the  act  differed  from  John's  baptism  of  any  other 
person.  Luke's  statement  that  the  baptism  of  Jesus  fol- 
lowed that  of  all  the  people — that  is,  was  the  last  baptism 
performed  by  John — appears  to  be  an  inference  from  the 
larger  conception  that  the  work  of  John  as  the  forerunner 
must  have  closed  with  the  appearance  of  his  successor. 

The  brevity  with  which  the  synoptists  treat  the  baptism 
of  Jesus  suggests  that  the  event,  at  the  time  of  its  trans- 
action, was  not  the  subject  of  remark,  and  that  no  special 
significance  had  come  to  be  attached  to  it  in  later  times. 
Its  importance  was  wholly  eclipsed  by  the  experience 
which  immediately  followed.  But  why,  one  may  ask, 
did  that  experience  follow  immediately  on  the  act  of  sub- 
mission to  John's  baptism  ?  The  sequence  is  surely  sug- 
gestive. But  if  the  baptism  of  Jesus  in  the  Jordan  con- 
ditioned the  coming  of  that  experience  which  turned  his 
life  into  an  entirely  new  channel,  it  must  have  been  im- 
portant for  Jesus  himself.  What  this  importance  was  we 
can  only  conjecture.  I  think  of  it  somewhat  as  follows : 
Since  Jesus  came  from  Galilee  to  John  at  the  Jordan,  he 
must  of  course  have  heard  of  John  and  his  message. 
When  he  reached  the  Jordan,  he  with  others  heard  John 
preach.  Now  if  in  later  days  he  thought  of  John's  bap- 
tism as  "from  heaven"  (Lk.  20:4),  so  at  this  time,  as  he 
stood  by  the  Jordan  and  heard  him  preach,  he  may  well 
have  felt  that  his  message  also,  or  the  burden  of  it  at  least, 
was  from  heaven.  And  if  in  later  days  he  declared  that 
among  those  born  of  women  there  had  not  arisen  a 
greater  than  John  the  Baptist  (Lk.  7:28),  it  is  readily 
conceivable  that  as  he,  just  come  from  the  quiet  life  of  a 
Nazareth  carpenter,  stood  face  to  face  with  this  mighty 
prophet,  and  heard  this  "Voice"  announce  that  the  king- 
dom of  God  was  at  hand,  the  spirit  of  longing  for  that 
kingdom  and  the  devotion  of  himself  to  its  service  reached 
a  culmination  in  which  his  whole  being  was  absorbed  and 
flooded  with  a  heavenly  light.  Thus  without  transcend- 
ing the  bounds  of  the  probable  we  have  an  adequate 
psychological  ground  for  the  experience  which  followed 
the  act  of  baptism  in  the  Jordan,  and  that  act  itself,  com- 
monplace to  an  observer,  one  of  thousands  that  preceded 

9 


I3O  THE   HISTORICAL   JESUS 

or  followed,  is  seen  to  be  a  fit  beginning  of  the  public 
ministry  of  Jesus. 

Of  what  transpired  in  the  moments  after  the  baptism 
of  Jesus  our  sources  give  differing  accounts.  In  the 
graphic  language  of  Mark  (1  :io)  Jesus  saw  the  heavens 
"rent  asunder,"  as  though  they  were  thought  to  be  of  a 
texture  which  would  only  yield  to  a  strong  force.  Mat- 
thew and  Luke  substitute  a  quiet  term,  and  say  that  the 
heavens  "were  opened"  (Mt.  3:16;  Lk.  3:21).  Either 
term  announces  that  a  znsivn  is  to  be  described.1  From 
the  rent  sky  the  Spirit  (Mk.),  or  the  Spirit  of  God  (Mt.), 
or  the  Holy  Spirit  (Lk.),  was  seen  by  Jesus  descending 
upon  him  as  a  dove.  Luke  lays  stress  on  the  unusualness 
of  the  Spirit's  appearance  by  adding  the  words  "in  a 
bodily  form,"  which  make  the  comparison  with  a  dove 
perfectly  explicit. 

A  second  independent  phenomenon  out  of  the  cleft  sky 
was  a  voice,  which  by  the  following  utterance  was  shown 
to  be  the  voice  of  God.  According  to  Mark  (1  :n)  and 
Luke  (3:22)  this  voice  said,  "Thou  art  my  beloved  Son, 
in  thee  I  am  well  pleased ;"  but  according  to  Matthew 
(3:I7)»  "This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am  well 
pleased."2  Thus  Matthew  thought  of  the  voice  as  a 
testimony,  probably  for  the  Baptist,  concerning  Jesus. 
Thus  he  either  conceived  of  the  phenomenon  materially, 
or  supposed  that  one  or  more  persons  besides  Jesus  shared 
in  the  vision. 

But  why  did  the  author  of  the  first  Gospel  depart  in 
this  point  from  the  view  of  Mark?  Probably  it  was 
under  the  influence  of  that  conception  of  the  person  of 
Christ  which  is  conspicuous  in  his  writings.8  It  may  have 
appeared  to  him  difficult  to  conceive  how  it  could  be 
needful  that  one  who  was  essentially  on  an  equality  with 
God  should  be  told  that  he  was  God's  Son.  Therefore  it 
may  have  seemed  necessary  to  him  to  let  the  voice  out 
of  heaven  come  to  the  Baptist  and  be  a  divine  testimony 
concerning  the  person  of  Jesus.     By  this  modification 

1  Cf.  Acts  10:11;  Rev.  4:1. 

3  The  version  of  Matthew  suggests  the  influence  of  Is.  43:1,  while  that 
of  Mark  and  Luke  suggests  Psalm  2:7. 

•Sec  Mt.   14:33;   16:18-19;   18:20;  28:18-20. 


ENTRANCE   INTO  PUBLIC   LIFE  I3I 

the  phenomenon  of  the  voice  ceases  to  be  of  significance 
for  Jesus.  That  only  which  concerned  him  was  the 
descent  of  the  Spirit. 

It  is  obvious  that  this  view  of  Matthew  introduces  a 
rather  serious  inconsistency  into  his  own  narrative,  for  if 
the  Baptist  received  a  supernatural  assurance  that  Jesus 
was  the  beloved  Son  of  God,  how  could  he  a  few  weeks 
later  have  sent  to  Jesus  the  question,  "Art  thou  he  that 
cometh?"1  To  have  forgotten  the  divine  voice  so  soon, 
or  thus  to  have  ignored  its  message,  seems  inexplicable 
in  a  great  prophet  like  John. 

There  is  yet  another  aspect  of  the  question.  The 
method  of  Jesus  was  to  reveal  truth,  and  let  men  draw 
their  own  inferences  in  regard  to  the  revealer.  He  did 
not  come  forward  with  the  bold  assertion  of  great 
claims:  his  method  was  spiritual.  Now  it  tends  to  dis- 
credit Matthew's  version  of  the  words  spoken  by  the 
heavenly  voice  that  they  are  not  in  accord  with  the  method 
of  Jesus,  in  which,  we  may  certainly  assume,  he  was 
guided  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  For  a  heavenly  voice  to  \ 
ideclare  to  the  Baptist  that  Jesus  was  the  Son  of  God  is 
I  foreign  to  the  manner  of  Jesus  in  regard  to  himself. 

But  turning  again  to  the  text  of  the  earliest  Gospel  as 
intrinsically  preferable  to  that  of  Matthew,  the  question 
arises    whether   even   this    is   original.     One   important 
codex  (D),  the  old  Latin  translation,  and  a  number  of 
authorities  in  the  Church  of  the  East  and  of  the  West, 
including  some  of  the  second  century,  give  the  words  of 
the  heavenly  voice  according  to  Ps.  2  :J — 
"Thou  art  my  Son, 
This  day  have  I  begotten  thee." 
Now  the  early  existence  of  two  versions  of  what  the 
heavenly  voice  said — one  according  to  Ps.  2\J  and  the 
other  according  to  Is.  42:1 — is  unfavorable  to  the  abso- 
lute originality  of  either  version.     It  is  best  explained  on\ 
the  hypothesis  that  what  Jesus  said  of  his  experience  in  | 
that  hour2  was  more  general  than  our  accounts  and  did  I 

1  Mt.  11:2-3. 

a  We    cannot    suppose    that    Jesus   told   his   disciples    of   this   vision   and 
experience  by  the  Jordan  before  the  day  at  Caesarea  Philippi. 


132  THE   HISTORICAL  JESUS 

not  go  beyond  the  assertion  of  a  divine  assurance  of 
sonship.  Subsequently  this  assurance  found  differing 
literary  expression  in  different  Christian  circles. 

What  now  was  the  spiritual  experience  of  Jesus  by  the 
Jordan  after  he  had  been  baptized  by  John?  What  did 
the  descent  of  the  Spirit  mean  to  him  and  what  the  assur- 
ance that  he  was  God's  Son  ? 

As  to  the  descent  of  the  Spirit  upon  him  we  have  no 
light  save  that  which  may  be  derived  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment; but  since  the  religious  life  of  Jesus  was  grounded 
on  this,  we  may  turn  to  it  with  some  confidence. 

There  are  two  passages  in  Second  Isaiah  which  may 
reasonably  be  supposed  to  account  for  the  vision  of  the 
Spirit's  descent  upon  Jesus.  In  one  of  these  an  unknown 
prophet  says  that  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  Jehovah  is  upon 
him  and  that  he  is  anointed  to  preach  good  tidings  to  the 
meek  (Is.  61:1-3),  and  in  the  other  the  Servant  of 
Jehovah  is  described  as  the  chosen  of  God,  the  one  on 
whom  the  Lord  has  put  his  Spirit  (Is.  42  11-4) .  The  tone 
of  both  passages  is  evangelic,  and  with  the  ministry  of 
Jesus  in  our  mind  we  could  readily  believe  that  these  pas- 
sages had  served  him  as  a  sort  of  ideal. 

Now  since  in  the  Old  Testament  the  prophet  and  the 
Servant  of  Jehovah  are  equipped  for  their  ministry  to 
Israel  and  to  the  Gentiles  by  the  presence  of  the  Spirit  of 
Jehovah,  when  Jesus  saw  the  Spirit  coming  upon  him, 
or  when  he  had  an  experience  which  he  could  symbolic- 
ally describe  in  this  manner,  we  may  well  believe  that  he 
felt  himself  in  the  position  of  the  prophet  of  old,  that  he 
was  filled  with  a  sense  of  being  called  to  minister  in 
Jehovah's  name  to  the  captives  and  the  broken-hearted 
and  the  mourners  in  Zion.  The  touch  of  a  great  prophet 
had  brought  him  to  self-realization.  He  too  is  a  prophet, 
the  chosen  of  Jehovah.  Yea  more:  his  experience  has 
not  yet  reached  its  climax.  To  the  sense  of  being  a 
prophet  of  Jehovah  is  added  the  assurance  of  being  his 
Son.  As  the  vision  of  the  Spirit  leads  us  back  to  the 
prophetic  Scriptures,  so  the  voice  and  the  title  "Son"  lead 
us  back  to  the  same  Scriptures  in  their  Messianic  outlook. 
The  combination  of  a  voice  out  of  heaven  and  the  title 


ENTRANCE  INTO  PUBLIC  LIFE  1 33 

"Son"  points  to  Ps.  2.'    No  other  passage  in  the  Old  / 
Testament  combines  these  two  features.    And  no  other 
is  needed  as  a  background  for  the  experience  in  question. 

Thus  we  have  to  think,  or  at  least  may  think,  that  in 
the  soul  of  Jesus  the  sense  of  being  a  prophet,  clothed 
with  the  Spirit  of  God,  was  succeeded,  perhaps  instantly, 
by  the  yet  more  momentous  conviction  of  being  the 
Messianic  prophet  who  was  to  bring  the  realization  of 
God's  promised  kingdom. 

The  sudden  recognition  of  this  fact,  the  realization  of 
this  overwhelming  responsibility  that  was  laid  upon  him 
by  God,  found  a  natural  expression  in  his  immediate 
retirement  into  solitude,  that  in  communion  with  God,' 
and  his  own  soul  he  might  learn  what  he  had  to  do  asj 
the  anointed  Messiah  of  his  people. 

The  Logia  contained  some  account  of  the  experience  of 
Jesus  in  the  wilderness.1  This  account  appears  to  have 
consisted  of  three  scenes,  each  containing  a  proposed 
course  of  action  together  with  a  Scripture  ground  for  its 
rejection.  The  second  and  third  scenes  of  Matthew's 
version  are  inverted  in  Luke.  That  Matthew  preserves 
the  original  order  is  favored  by  the  fact  that  his  order 
gives  a  regular  gradation  in  the  inducements  from  the 
first  to  the  third. 

The  essence  of  these  three  scenes  is  identical  in  the 
two  versions,  a  fact  that  is  notable  in  view  of  the  unusual 
number  of  variants  in  the  presentation  of  the  scenes 
(about  40).  The  formal  diversity  is  evidence  of  freedom 
in  the  individual  handling  of  the  Logia  material.  The 
general  setting  of  these  scenes  points  to  the  same  freedom. 
Thus  according  to  Matthew  Jesus  was  led  up  into  the 
wilderness  under  the  impulse  of  the  Spirit,  while  accord- 
ing to  Luke  he  returned  from  the  Jordan,  full  of  the 
Spirit,  and,  in  the  Spirit,  was  led  in  the  wilderness,  that 
is,  led  about  from  place  to  place.  Again,  according  to 
Matthew,  the  time  of  trial  was  after  forty  days,  while 
according  to  Luke  the  trial  continued  all  through  the 
forty  days,  culminating  in  the  three  specific  scenes.  Ac- 
cording to  Matthew,  Jesus  fasted  during  the  forty  days 

*Mt.  4:3-11;  Lk.  4:3-13- 


134  THE   HISTORICAL   JESUS 

and  nights ;  according  to  Luke,  he  ate  nothing.  Matthew 
says  that  Jesus  went  into  the  wilderness  for  the  purpose 
of  being  tempted — a  thought  not  found  in  Luke.  Accord- 
ing to  Matthew,  the  devil  left  Jesus ;  according  to  Luke, 
he  left  him  for  a  season.  Finally,  Luke  has  no  reference 
to  a  ministry  of  angels. 

This  diversity  in  the  setting  in  Matthew  and  Luke  sug- 
gests that  the  account  in  the  Logia  was  mainly  devoid  of 
setting.  It  doubtless  located  the  trial  in  the  "wilderness," 
but  may  not  have  done  much  more  than  this. 

The  narrative  of  Mark  ( I  :I2-I3)  gives  no  specific  sug- 
gestion in  regard  to  the  nature  of  Jesus'  experience  in  the 
wilderness.  It  shows  no  trace  of  acquaintance  with  the 
Logia  account.  Taken  as  a  whole,  it  is  not  intelligible  as 
a  report  by  Jesus  of  his  retirement  into  the  wilderness, 
for  we  cannot  suppose  that  he  would  have  told  his  dis- 
ciples that  he  was  tempted,  and  yet  not  have  said  anything 
of  the  nature  of  the  temptation,  or  how  he  had  met  it 
To  have  done  that  would  only  have  bewildered  them. 

Attention  has  been  called  to  the  freedom  with  which  the 
temptation  scenes  are  presented  in  Matthew  and  Luke 
while  the  substance  is  identical  in  the  two  versions. 
This  fact  indicates  that  the  substance  was  in  the  Logia, 
a  circumstance  which,  though  not  a  proof  of  the  historical 
character  of  the  material,  establishes  a  presumption  in  its 
favor.  But  if  the  story  is  in  essence  historical,  it  must 
have  come  ultimately  from  the  lips  of  Jesus,  for  he  was 
alone  in  the  wilderness.  In  determining  whether  the 
story  is  in  reality  historical  it  is  important  to  ask  whether 
it  agrees  with  the  situation  which  it  has  in  the  life  of 
Jesus,  whether  also  the  burden  of  its  teaching  is  harmon- 
ious with  what  preceded  and  what  followed.  We  must 
ask  then,  in  the  first  place,  what  its  teaching  is,  and  in 
doing  this  we  will  take  up  the  three  scenes  in  order. 

In  a  desert  region  and  hungry,  Jesus  was  confronted 
with  the  proposition,  "If1  thou  art  the  Son  of  God,  com- 

1  Since  the  tempting  proposals  are  to  be  thought  of  as  arising  in  the 
mind  of  Jesus,  the  conditional  form  "if  thou  art  the  Son  of  God"  may  be 
thought  to  imply  momentary  doubt  in  regard  to  the  recent  assurance  of 
Sonship.  It  is  not  certain,  however,  that  the  conditional  particle  has  more 
than  a  rhetorical   force. 


/ 


ENTRANCE   INTO   PUBLIC   LIFE  1 35 

mand  that  these  stones  become  bread."  The  title  "Son 
of  God"  shows  that  the  present  experience  of  Jesus  was 
in  closest  connection  with  that  by  the  Jordan.  Its  mean- 
ing must  be  thence  derived.  As  we  have  seen  in  the  j 
study  of  that  experience,  the  title  is  equivalent  to  "Mes-  I 
siah."  Out  of  this  new  consciousness  of  his  mission  the 
proposal  came  to  Jesus  to  satisfy  his  hunger  miraculously. 
And  this — it  might  have  been  urged — would  be  making 
a  natural  and  reasonable  use  of  the  power  associated  with 
his  new  office.1 

This  proposal  was  rejected.  It  had  assumed,  and 
wrongly,  that  the  present  occasion  justified  a  miraculous 
production  of  bread.  It  had  thus  ignored  the  truth  that 
man  is  a  spirit,  whose  life  is  maintained  by  other  food 
than  bread  (Dt.  8:3). 

The  second  proposal  was  in  the  words,  "If  thou  art  the 
Son  of  God,  cast  thyself  down :  for  it  is  written : 
"He  shall  give  his  angels  charge  concerning  thee, 
And  on  their  hands  they  shall  bear  thee  up, 
Lest  haply  thou  dash  thy  foot  against  a  stone." 

(Ps.  91  III-I2). 

In  the  setting  of  this  scene  in  Matthew  and  Luke  the 
height  from  which  it  was  proposed  that  Jesus  should  cast 
himself  down  was  a  pinnacle  of  the  temple  in  Jerusalem. 
This  requires  the  introduction  of  a  new  element  into  the 
story,  viz.  the  element  of  imagination.  For  we  cannot 
suppose  that  Jesus  actually  left  the  wilderness,  went  up 
to  Jerusalem,  climbed  to  the  roof  of  the  temple,  and 
there  met  the  proposal  to  throw  himself  down.  But  if 
this  is  inconceivable,  if  the  second  proposal,  like  the  first, 
confronted  him  in  the  wilderness,  then  the  ascent  of  a 
pinnacle  of  the  temple  was  only  imaginary.  But  it  is 
not  at  all  necessary  to  introduce  this  new  element,  and  so 
to  weaken  the  force  of  the  proposal.  It  is  easier  and 
more  natural  to  suppose  that  the  suggestion  to  cast  him- 
self down  came  to  Jesus  as  he  stood  on  the  brink  of  some 
precipice  in  the  wilderness  which  may  unexpectedly  have 

1  This  implies  of  course  that  Jesus,  at  that  time,  shared  the  popular 
belief  regarding  the  power  of  the  Messiah,  which  we  have  no  reason  to 
doubt   was  the   case. 


I36  THE   HISTORICAL  JESUS 

checked  him  in  his  wanderings.  In  the  course  of  time, 
while  the  tradition  was  yet  fluid,  this  situation  may  have 
been  exchanged  for  the  more  striking  one  of  our  text. 

The  proposal  amounts  to  this:  If  thou  art  the  Mes- 
siah, cast  thyself  down,  for  angels  will  preserve  thee 
from  harm.  The  desirable  thing  is  to  see  whether,  as 
Messiah,  he  bears  a  charmed  life  for  which  he  does  not 
need  to  be  careful.  That  this  suggestion  arose,  and  that 
it  had  power,  is  evidence  that  Jesus  shared  the  popular 
belief  in  regard  to  the  miraculous  resources  of  the 
Messiah. 

But  this  proposal  also  was  rejected.  To  accept  it 
would  be  to  tempt  God,  which  is  a  forbidden  thing.  The 
man  who  is  promised  divine  protection  is  the  ordinary 
wayfarer  who  sets  his  love  on  God  and  dwells  in  his 
secret  place  (Ps.  91:1,  14),  not  the  man  who  presump- 
tuously leaps  from  precipices. 

The  third  proposal,  like  the  others,  does  not  necessarily 
take  us  out  of  the  "wilderness."  The  original  situation 
— if  we  follow  the  suggestion  of  Luke's  narrative — may 
have  been  some  rocky  point  overlooking  both  the  Jordan 
valley  and  the  country  to  the  west,  with  a  far  view  also 
into  the  regions  of  Perea  and  Moab.  On  such  a  height, 
whether  west  of  the  Jordan  or  east  of  it  does  not  matter, 
Jesus  met  the  proposal  contained  in  the  words :  "All  these 
things  will  I  give  thee,  if  thou  wilt  fall  down  and  worship 
me."  There  is  nothing  here  about  his  being  the  Son  of 
God.  That  title  does  not  enter  into  the  proposition,  as 
in  the  preceding  cases.  But  though  not  expressed,  it  is 
surely  implied :  that  is  to  say,  the  proposition  arose  in  the 
mind  of  Jesus  in  connection  with  the  consciousness  of 
the  Messianic  call.  It  is  that  which  now  filled  all  his 
thought,  and  only  in  the  light  of  that  is  the  proposal  at 
all  intelligible. 

The  devil  of  this  third  scene  differs  notably  from  the 
tempter  of  the  two  preceding  scenes.  There  is  a  show 
of  reason  in  the  proposals  there  made,  but  the  third  pro- 
posal, as  it  stands  in  our  text,  is  too  gross  to  appeal  to  any 
being  who  is  not  morally  on  the  same  level  with  Satan 
himself.     It   is  therefore   impossible  to   regard  this   as 


ENTRANCE  INTO  PUBLIC  LIFE  1 37 

original.  We  must  rather  take  the  words  "if  thou  wilt 
fall  down  and  worship  me"  as  giving,  from  Jesus?  point  of 
view,  the  real  condition  on  which  he  could  secure  the 
dominion  of  the  world.  It  would  be,  virtually,  by  wor- 
shipping Satan.  This  is  the  final  thought  of  Jesus  in 
regard  to  the  popular  materialistic  conception  of  a  Mes- 
sianic kingdom.  One  could  not  realize  that  kingdom 
^except  by  Satanic  means. 

Such  are  the  three  scenes  of  our  text.     In  each  one  the  I 
fulcrum  of  the  tempting  suggestion  is  the  consciousness/ 
of  being  called  to  the  Messianic  ministry.     The  power  of  I 
the  temptation  sprang  out  of  the  popular  conception  of 
the  Messiah.     The  rejection  of  each  proposition  came 
from  considering  it  in  the   light  of  a  man's   supreme 
allegiance,  from  which  even  the  Messiah  is  not  liberated. 

The  question  now  arises  whether  this  mental  conflict 
and  its  outcome  are  in  accord  with  what  preceded  and 
what  followed  in  the  life  of  Jesus.  What  preceded  was 
the  private  life  in  Nazareth,  terminated  by  the  consecra- 
tion to  the  kingdom  of  God  with  the  accompanying  ex- 
perience of  a  new  and  wondrous  relationship  to  him. 
That  private  life,  out  of  which  flowered  the  teaching  of 
Jesus,  must  have  been  profoundly  spiritual.  If  now  into 
such  a  life  there  came  the  consciousness  of  being  called 
to  realize  the  Messianic  kingdom — came  moreover  in  an  \ 
age  when  the  conception  of  this  kingdom  was  intensely 
material  and  political1 — a  conflict  would  seem  to  be  in- 
evitable. We  may  suppose  that  Jesus  in  earlier  years 
had  not  wholly  sympathized  with  the  prevailing  Messianic 
views,  but  he  then  considered  them  from  without  and,  as 
it  were,  at  a  distance;  now  under  the  pressure  of  the 
personal  conviction  of  his  own  Messianic  responsibility 
there  must  be  realized  within  him  an  absolute  harmony 
between  his  spiritual  life  in  God  and  his  Messianic  ideal.  , 
We  can  understand  therefore  how  there  should  have  been 
within  him  a  profound  struggle:  indeed  we  can  hardly 
understand  how  he  could  have  escaped  such  a  struggle. 

But  let  us  now  approach  the  story  of  the  wilderness 

1  Even  the  apostles  are  represented  as  clinging  to  this  conception  after 
the  resurrection  of  Jesus.     See  Acts  1:6. 


I38  THE   HISTORICAL  JESUS 

experience  from  the  other  side.  Here  a  very  brief  state- 
ment will  be  sufficient.  The  result  of  the  struggle  in  the 
wilderness  was  the  rejection  of  a  material  miraculous 
Messiahship.  So  far  its  significance  was  negative.  To 
learn  its  positive  significance  we  must  go  back  to  the 
vision  by  the  Jordan. 

In  Jesus'  consciousness  that  he  was  clothed  upon  with 
the  Spirit  of  God,  as  was  the  Servant  of  Jehovah  in 
Isaiah,  there  was  involved  the  thought  of  a  prophetic 
ministry,  and  as  this  consciousness  was  immediately 
enlarged  or  exalted  to  that  of  Messiahship,  we  may 
assume  that  the  rejection  of  the  popular  conception  of 
Messiahship1  in  the  wilderness  left  in  the  soul  of  Jesus 
the  conception  of  a  prophetic  Messiahship.  But  this  is 
just  the  conception  which  we  actually  find  both  in  the 
words  of  Jesus  and  for  the  most  part  in  the  Gospel  narra- 
tive as  well. 

We  conclude  then  that  the  substance  of  the  temptation 
is  in  accord  with  what  preceded  and  what  followed  in  the 
life  of  Jesus;  in  other  words,  it  seems  to  be  an  integral 
part  of  the  experience  of  the  Master. 

We  have  now  considered  the  critical  events  which  ter- 
minated the  private  life  of  Jesus,  and  which  not  only  fore- 
shadowed a  public  career,  but  also  indicated  of  what 
nature  that  career  would  be. 

1  According  to  this  the  Messiah  was  to  be  a  political  leader  and  his  work 
a  material  kingdom. 


CHAPTER  IV 
WHAT  JESUS  THOUGHT  OF  HIMSELF 

We  have  already  touched  the  subject  of  this  chapter  in 
the  discussion  of  what  transpired  at  the  baptism  of  Jesus 
and  in  the  wilderness.  We  shall  now  take  it  up  on  the 
basis  of  all  the  data,  beginning  with  the  Logia. 

A  striking  feature  of  that  oldest  document  is  the 
meagreness  of  its  personal  disclosures.  Seven-eighths  of 
it  consists  of  ethical  and  religious  instruction,  without  an 
allusion  to  the. speaker.  This  instruction  is  similar  to  that 
of  the  great  prophets  of  the  earlier  times,  especially  to 
that  of  Second  Isaiah.  It  is  marked  off  from  that  teach- 
ing by  greater  simplicity  and  spirituality,  and  by  its 
wonderful  blending  of  gentleness  and  authority.  Taken 
by  itself,  apart  from  the  personal  element  yet  to  be  men- 
tioned, it  might  be  regarded  merely  as  the  culmination  of 
Hebrew  prophecy.  It  is  therefore  what  the  vision  of 
Jesus  By  the  Jordan,  when  he  saw  the  Spirit  descending 
upon  him,  would  lead  us  to  expect. 

But  while  by  far  the  greater  part  of  the  Logia  would 
lead  us  to  think  of  the  speaker  as  the  supreme  prophet, 
there  is  a  small  but  weighty  class  of  passages  which  seem 
to  set  him  apart  from  the  prophets,  and  in  some  sense 
above  them.  But  not  all  of  these  have  the  same  claim  to 
be  regarded  as  part  of  the  common  source  of  Matthew 
and  Luke.  Let  those  that  are  doubtful  be  first  con- 
sidered. 

Jesus  is  represented  by  Matthew  as  setting  himself 
directly  against  both  the  traditional  law  and  the  Penta- 
teuch.1 This  strong  assertion  of  superiority  to  former 
authorities  in  Israel  is  not  supported  by  Luke.2    There  is 

1  Mt.  5:28,  32,  34,  39,  44. 

aThe  antithesis  of  Luke  6:27  is  not  with  the  Law,  but  with  the  thought 
of  the  verse  just  preceding. 

139 


140  THE   HISTORICAL  JESUS 

also  an  intrinsic  improbability  in  supposing  that  Jesus, 
who,  in  Mt.  5:18,  had  declared  that  while  heaven  and 
earth  remain,  one  jot  of  the  Law  should  not  pass,  would 
have  voluntarily  antagonized  the  scribes  by  setting  his 
word  above  the  sacred  volume.  As  he  most  carefully 
sought  to  avoid  a  popular  misunderstanding  of  his  atti- 
tude toward  Messiahship,  even  so,  we  may  naturally 
think,  he  would  not  have  provoked  a  conflict  with  the 
rulers  in  regard  to  that  Law  which  was  certainly  of  as 
great  importance  in  their  sight  as  was  the  Messianic 
hope.  It  seems  probable  therefore  that  the  sharp  juxta- 
position of  Jesus'  teaching  to  the  letter  of  the  Law  is  to 
be  ascribed  to  the  editorial  activity  of  the  evangelist. 
The  thought  of  Jesus  in  these  verses  did,  indeed,  go  be- 
yond, or  possibly  even  against,  that  of  the  Old  Testament, 
but  we  need  not  suppose  that  he  expressed  himself  in  a 
form  that  would  surely  be  obnoxious  to  his  hearers. 

Again,  it  appears  doubtful  whether  Mt.  8:21  preserves, 
unchanged,  a  saying  of  the  Logia,  for  Luke  (6:46)  gives 
us,  in  the  same  general  setting,  these  words:  "Why  call 
ye  me  Lord,  Lord,  and  do  not  the  things  that  I  say?" 
This  is  a  protest  against  the  present  insincerity  of  his 
hearers,  while  the  words  of  Mt.  7:21 — "Not  everyone 
that  saith  unto  me,  Lord,  Lord,  shall  enter  into  the  king- 
dom of  heaven" — evidently  refer  to  the  future  judgment. 
Moreover,  it  is  not  favorable  to  the  originality  of  the  say- 
ing in  Matthew  that  it  involves  a  conception  of  Jesus 
which  cannot  be  carried  back  to  so  early  a  time  as  that 
of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  People  who  could  possibly 
imagine  that  a  reverent  attitude  toward  Jesus  would  be  a 
sufficient  passport  in  the  day  of  judgment  must  of  course 
be  supposed  to  have  clearly  recognized  him  as  the  Mes- 
siah ;  but  such  recognition,  even  on  the  part  of  his  intimate 
disciples,  seems  not  to  have  taken  place  before  the  great 
day  at  Caesarea  Philippi,  and  on  the  part  of  the  general 
public  it  never  took  place.  It  is  obvious  therefore  that, 
as  compared  with  the  version  of  Luke,  that  of  Matthew 
is  secondary. 

There  is  yet  another  passage  in  the  double  tradition  of 
Matthew  and  Luke  of  which  the  two  texts  are  so  divergent 


WHAT  JESUS   THOUGHT  OF  HIMSELF  I4I 

that  the  original  saying  back  of  them  is  obscured.  Ac- 
cording to  Mt.  19 :28  Jesus  said  to  the  Twelve:  "Verily,  I 
say  unto  you,  that  ye  who  have  followed  me,  in  the 
regeneration  when  the  Son  of  Man  shall  sit  on  the  throne 
of  his  glory,  ye  also  shall  sit  upon  twelve  thrones,  judging 
the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel ;"  but  according  to  Lk.  22  -.28-30 
he  said :  "But  ye  are  they  which  have  continued  with  me 
in  my  temptations;  and  I  appoint  unto  you  a  kingdom, 
even  as  my  Father  appointed  unto  me;  that  ye  may  eat 
and  drink  at  my  table,  in  my  kingdom ;  and  ye  shall  sit  on 
thrones  judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel." 

Now  it  is  noticeable,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  settings 
of  this  passage  in  Matthew  and  Luke  are  unusually 
divergent.  In  Matthew  it  is  spoken  in  response  to  a 
question  of  Peter,  in  Luke  it  is  a  spontaneous  utterance 
of  Jesus.  Peter  seems  to  be  actuated,  in  Matthew,  by 
much  the  same  motive  that  led  James  and  John  to  seek 
the  first  places  in  the  coming  kingdom,  but  in  Luke  Jesus, 
of  his  own  accord,  promises  kingly  rule  to  the  Twelve  in 
view  of  their  faithfulness. 

Still  more  significant  are  the  phraseology  and  the  ideas. 
Thus  the  word  "regeneration"  (7raAivya/e<ua)  occurs  no- 
where else  in  the  Gospels,  nor  indeed  in  the  entire  New 
Testament  in  the  sense  it  has  here,  for  in  Titus  3:5  it 
is  individual  and  ethical,  not  cosmical.1  Further,  there 
is  nothing  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus  that  throws  light  on 
this  term,  no  idea  that  is  parallel  to  the  meaning  which 
it  seems  to  have.  Thus  it  appears  in  the  text  as  a 
foreign  element. 

Again,  the  thought  that  Jesus  is  to  sit  upon  a  throne  in 
the  realized  kingdom  is  found  only  in  Matthew,  and  the 
other  passage  where  it  occurs  bears  marks  of  a  late  date.2 
Then  the  promise  that  the  Twelve  should  be  enthroned 
as  judges  of  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel  seems  to  depart 
in  two  fundamental  points  from  the  thought  of  Jesus. 
He  told  James  and  John  that  it  was  not  in  his  power  to 
assign  places  of  honor  in  the  kingdom  of  God,3  and  he 

*Dalman,   Die   Worte  Jesu,  p.    145.  tells  us  that  this  word  cannot  be 
literally  translated  into  either  Hebrew  or  Aramaic. 
aMt.   25:31-46. 
•Mk.   10:40;  Mt.  20:23. 


142  THE   HISTORICAL   JESUS 

made  it  clear  on  one  notable  occasion  that  the  way  of  true 
honor  was  open  to  all  disciples  without  distinction,1  but 
according  to  the  present  passage  he  surrenders  both  these 
principles.  We  conclude  therefore  that  this  passage  is  not 
available  with  those  of  the  Logia  which  give  us  light  on 
the  view  which  Jesus  took  regarding  himself.2 

We  pass  now  to  the  more  important  words  which  Mat- 
thew and  Luke  derived  from  the  Logia,  bearing  upon  our 
subject.  There  is  first  a  group  of  sayings  that  concern 
the  attitude  of  men  toward  Jesus.  Thus  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount  closes  with  the  assertion  that  one  who  hears 
and  does  the  words  of  Jesus  is  like  a  man  who  builds  on 
a  rock-foundation.3  The  winds  and  floods  cannot  shake 
his  structure.  With  this  take  also  the  word  spoken  of 
the  centurion  of  Capernaum:  "I  have  not  found  so  great 
faith,  no,  not  in  Israel."4  From  this  it  appears  that  Jesus 
had  been  looking  for  faith  on  the  part  of  those  who  had 
heard  his  word  and  seen  his  works.  To  judge  from  this 
narrative  the  faith  which  Jesus  welcomed  was  trust  in 
him  as  able  and  willing  to  help. 

There  is  yet  another  saying  of  the  Logia  which  belongs 
here,  that  of  Lk.  12:8-9;  Mt.  10:32-33:  "Everyone  who 
shall  confess  me  before  men,  him  shall  the  Son  of  Man 
confess  before  the  angels  of  God :  but  he  that  denieth  me 
in  the  presence  of  men  shall  be  denied  in  the  presence  of 
the  angels  of  God."  The  general  sense  of  the  word 
"confess"  is  clear  from  the  antithetic  word  "deny"  and 
from  the  antithesis  of  the  two  scenes  of  confession  or 
denial,  one  in  the  presence  of  men,  the  other  before  the 
angels  of  God,  that  is,  in  the  day  of  judgment.  The  say- 
ing plainly  assumes  that  a  man's  attitude  toward  Jesus 
is  of  vital  importance.  And  that  is  also  the  implication 
of  the  two  preceding  passages.  Why  a  man's  attitude 
toward  Jesus  is  of  vital  importance  is  suggested  by  the 
first  of  the  three  passages  before  us.  It  is  because  he 
reveals  the  character  and  will  of  God,  because  he  is  the 
supreme  Teacher. 

1  Mk.    10:43-45;    Mt.    20:26-28;   Lk.    22:26. 

2  The  notable  peculiarities  of  Luke's  version  of  this  saying  (e.g.,  the  use 
of  ntipafffi.6*  .ind  /SaoiActa)  serve   to   confirm  this  conclusion. 

»Lk.  6:4749;  Mt.  7:24-27.  4  Lk.  7:2-10;   Mt.  8:to. 


WHAT   JESUS   THOUGHT   OF   HIMSELF  I43 

A  second  group  of  sayings  in  the  Logia  help  to  define 
the  thought  of  Jesus  regarding  himself  by  contrasting 
him  with  the  earlier  revelations  of  God.  There  is  first 
the  message  of  Jesus  to  John.1  The  messengers  were 
to  tell  John  what  they  had  heard  and  seen  in  the  presence 
of  Jesus — his  deeds  of  mercy  and  his  preaching — and  it 
appears  that  these  facts  were  thought  to  be  suggestive 
for  John  because  of  a  correspondence  between  them 
and  certain  Messianic  forecasts,  as  Is.  35:5  and  60:1. 
Then  the  messengers  were  also  to  bear  back  this  most 
significant  word:  "Blessed  is  he  whosoever  shall  find 
none  occasion  of  stumbling  in  me."  It  is  here  plainly 
admitted  to  be  possible  that,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the 
activity  of  Jesus  answers  in  a  remarkable  manner  to  pro- 
phetic visions  of  the  coming  age,  one  may  find  in  him 
occasion  of  stumbling.  The  one  who  spoke  thus  evi- 
dently realized  that  he  did  not  altogether  correspond  to 
all  the  prophetic  forecasts.  A  man  might  stand  securely 
and  intelligently  on  Old  Testament  ground  and  yet  not 
recognize  him  as  the  "coming  one." 

Two  other  sayings  belong  here.  When  scribes  and 
Pharisees  sought  a  sign  from  Jesus,2  he  put  his  appear- 
ance and  work  in  line  with  Jonah's  appearance  in  Nine- 
veh, and  then  went  on  to  declare  that  the  men  of  Nineveh 
would  condemn  the  present  generation  because  they  had 
repented  at  Jonah's  preaching,  and  "something  greater" 
than  Jonah  was  now  among  them.  In  like  manner  the 
Queen  of  the  South  would  condemn  the  present  genera- 
tion, for  she  came  from  the  ends  of  the  earth  to  hear  the 
wisdom  of  Solomon,  and  "something  greater"  than  Sol- 
omon was  now  among  them.  This  "something"  that  is 
"greater"8  (  tt\Gqv)  than  prophets  and  wise  men  of  old 
is  not  here  defined,  but  the  context  clearly  leads  us  to  see 
it  in  the  message  of  Jesus. 

The  second  saying  is  that  of  Lk.  10:23-24;  Mt.  13: 
16-17.     "Blessed  are  the  eyes  which  see  the  things  which 

1  Mt.  11 :4-6;  Lk.  7:22-23. 

*Lk.   11:29-32;  Mt.   12:38-42.  ,.,,.. 

■  It  is  surely  significant  that  Jesus  did  not  directly  contrast  himself  with 
prophets  and  wise  men.  He  did  not  say  "one  greater,"  but  "something 
greater." 


144  THE    HISTORICAL   JESUS 

ye  see :  for  I  say  unto  you  that  many  prophets  and  kings 
desired  to  see  the  things  which  ye  see  and  saw  them  not, 
and  to  hear  the  things  which  ye  hear,  and  heard  them 
not."  This  word  sets  Jesus  apart  from  the  prophets,  at 
least  in  the  completeness  of  his  message.1 

Following  these  two  groups  of  passages  which  throw 
light  on  our  subject  from  two  points  of  view,  we  have 
finally  a  single  passage  which  touches  it  in  a  different 
manner.  This  is  the  saying  of  Lk.  10:21-22;  Mt.  11: 
25-27.  Unfortunately  the  text  of  this  great  passage  is 
not  altogether  certain  and  its  original  setting  is  unknown. 
As  regards  the  text,  the  uncertainty  belongs  to  the  last 
verse.  Harnack2  has  pointed  out  that  the  clause  "and 
who  the  Son  is  save  the  Father"  does  not  suit  the  context. 
That  has  to  do  with  knowledge  of  the  Father,  not  of  the 
Son.  It  was  knowledge  of  the  Father  for  which  Jesus 
gave  thanks  in  verse  25  (Mt.),  and  it  is  knowledge  of 
the  Father  with  which  the  last  half  of  verse  27  has  to  do. 

Again,  the  aim  of  this  verse  appears  to  be  theological, 
while  that  of  the  context  is  wholly  practical.  The  knowl- 
edge of  the  Father  which  the  Son  has  he  imparts  to  others. 
He  shares  it  with  all  who  are  receptive.  It  is  the  very 
knowledge  for  whose  acceptance  by  his  disciples  he  gave 
thanks  in  verse  25,  for  though  his  own  mediation  did  not 
come  into  sight  there  it  must  of  course  be  understood. 
But  the  statement  that  no  one  knows  the  Son  save  the 
Father  appears  to  have  no  other  aim  than  to  claim  that 
Jesus  can  be  known  by  the  Father  only,  in  other  words 
to  claim  that  he  is  of  the  same  nature  with  the  Father, 
as  is  done  by  the  author  of  Mt.  28:19.  Because  then  this 
statement  regarding  the  Father's  knowledge  of  the  Son 
appears  to  be  at  variance  with  the  context,  we  may  best 
regard  it  as  a  later  development. 

But  the  passage,  even  after  this  deduction,  is  the  most 
comprehensive  and  weighty  for  the  subject  in  hand  which 
is  to  be  found  in  the  Logia.  It  contains  the  threefold 
claim  that  Jesus  had  a  complete  knowledge  of  the  Father, 
that  he  alone  had  this  knowledge,  and  that  he  could  im- 

1  Cf.  Lk.   10:12-15;   Mt.    11:20-24. 

■See  Spriiche  und  Kcdcn  Jcsu,  pp.  189-211. 


WHAT  JESUS   THOUGHT   OF   HIMSELF  I45 

part  it  to  receptive  souls.  The  form  of  this  saying  sug- 
gests the  experience  by  the  Jordan  in  which  Jesus  was 
conscious  of  being  the  Son  of  God.  The  completeness 
of  the  knowledge  of  the  Father  which  is  claimed  puts 
the  passage  in  the  class  with  those  already  considered 
where  Jesus  contrasts  God's  message  through  him  with 
the  former  revelation. 

We  may  say  that  this  verse  sums  up  the  content  of  all 
the  passages  of  the  Logia  which  have  come  into  view  in 
the  present  chapter.  For  one  who  was  conscious  of  pos- 
sessing a  complete  knowledge  of  the  Father  and  conscious 
of  being  able  to  impart  it  to  others  could  say,  as  Jesus 
did,  that  the  man  who  heard  and  did  his  words  was  like 
one  who  builds  on  the  rock ;  he  could  reasonably  look  for 
faith  in  his  word  and  rejoice  when  he  found  it ;  he  could 
say  that  confession  or  denial  of  him  was  of  transcendent 
importance;  he  could  say  that  the  members  of  his  king- 
dom were  greater  than  the  Baptist,  though  the  Baptist 
was  equal  to  any  prophet;  he  could  declare  that  some- 
thing greater  than  Jonah  and  greater  than  Solomon  had 
been  manifested  in  his  appearance  and  work,  and  there- 
fore could  pronounce  his  disciples  blessed  as  compared 
with  kings  and  prophets  of  old. 

Thus  according  to  those  words  of  Jesus  which  are, 
found  in  the  Logia — that  earliest  Christian  document  of 
which  we  have  any  trace — he  thought  of  himself  as  chosen! 
to  be  the  revealer  of  God.     His  mission  was  to  make  J 
known  the  truth.     He  thought  of  himself  as  a  prophet, 
but  as  marked  off  from  those  who  had  gone  before  by 
the  possession  of  complete  knowledge  of  the  Father.     In 
the  vision  by  the  Jordan,  but  not  elsewhere  in  the  Logia, 
is  there  a  distinct  reference  to  the  Messianic  title. 

We  pass  now  from  the  Logia  to  the  data  which  are 
furnished  by  the  common  tradition  of  all  the  synoptists, 
that  is,  to  those  data  of  the  oldest  Gospel  which,  with  or 
without  change,  were  incorporated  by  Matthew  and  Luke 
in  their  narratives.  How,  according  to  these  data,  did 
Jesus  regard  himself? 

Here,  as  in  the  Logia,  the  great  body  of  the  words 
ascribed  to  Jesus  make  no  allusion  to  the  speaker:  the 
xo 


I46  THE    HISTORICAL   JESUS 

teaching  is  impersonal.  Naturally  then,  when  we  have 
only  this  teaching  in  mind,  we  infer  that  the  one  who 
gave  it  regarded  himself  as  a  teacher  or  prophet.  And 
when  we  go  forward  to  the  small  class  of  passages 
which  do  allude  to  the  speaker,  we  find  both  these  terms 
on  his  lips.  Jesus  placed  himself  in  the  category  of 
prophets  when  he  said  to  his  unbelieving  townsmen  in 
Nazareth:1  "A  prophet  is  not  without  honor  save  in  his 
own  country  and  among  his  own  kin  and  in  his  own 
house;"  and  he  classed  himself  with  teachers  when  on 
the  last  evening  he  sent  to  make  preparation  for  the  pass- 
over  meal,  and  told  his  disciples  to  say  to  the  good  man 
of  the  house,  "The  teacher  saith,  where  is  my  guest  cham- 
ber where  I  shall  eat  the  passover  with  my  disciples?"2 

To  one  other  saying  our  attention  is  rightly  called  in 
this  connection.  Jesus  said  to  a  paralytic,  "Thy  sins  are 
forgiven,"3  and  when  he  saw  that  this  word  caused 
offense,  he  justified  it  by  healing  the  man.  But  first  he 
asked  his  silent  critics  whether  it  was  easier  to  forgive 
sins  or  to  heal  disease.  He  assumed  that  the  former  was 
the  easier,  and  that  no  one  could  challenge  this  assump- 
tion. Then  he  spoke  the  healing  word  to  the  paralytic, 
that  his  adversaries  might  know  that  he,  the  Son  of  Man, 
had  authority  to  forgive  sins  upon  earth.  He  seems  to 
have  regarded  the  announcement  of  forgiveness  as  a 
prophetic  act,  for  he  classed  it  with  healing  as  the  easier 
of  the  two,  and  acts  of  healing  were  certainly  regarded  by 
him  as  within  the  prophet's  sphere.4  It  is  to  be  noted 
that  Jesus  did  not  assume  to  forgive  sins  by  any  right  or 
power  inherent  in  himself.  He  only  claimed  to  be 
authorised  so  to  act,  which  word  clearly  points  away 
from  himself  to  another  as  the  original  source  of  for- 
giveness. 

A  prophet  and  a  teacher,  then,  was  Jesus  in  his  own 
eyes,  and  the  great  mass  of  his  words  in  the  triple  tradi- 
tion, probably  nine-tenths,  do  not  suggest  any  other  office. 

But  there  is  here  also,  as  in  the  Logia,  a  group  of  pas- 
sages which  separate,  in  some  sense,  between  Jesus  and 

1Mk.  6:4.  3Mlc.   14:14.  »Mk.  3:5. 

*See,  e.g.,  Mt.   10:8. 


WHAT   JESUS   THOUGHT   OF   HIMSELF  \£fl 

other  prophets,  and  to  these  data  we  now  turn.  First  in 
order  is  the  famous  Caesarean  passage.1  Jesus  asked 
his  disciples  what  men  thought  of  him,  who  or  what  he 
was,  and  received  the  answer  that  some  regarded  him  as 
John  the  Baptist,  others  as  Elijah,  and  still  others  as  a 
prophet.  That  is  to  say,  the  highest  opinion  of  his  mis- 
sion which  men  held  made  him  the  forerunner  of  the 
Messiah.  Then  he  put  the  direct  question  to  his  disciples : 
"But  whom  say  ye  that  I  am?"  One  voice  only — that  of 
Peter— replied :  "Thou  art  the  Christ."  Yet  this  one 
voice  appears  to  have  been  in  reality  representative,  for 
the  narrative  continues  that  Jesus  charged  "them"  not 
to  speak  concerning  him  to  any  one,  that  is,  not  to  pro- 
claim him  as  the  Christ ;  but  we  cannot  suppose  that  they 
would  have  thus  proclaimed  him  had  they  not  believed 
him  to  be  the  Messiah. 

Jesus  accepted  this  avowal  of  belief — indeed  he  seems 
to  have  sought  it — but  the  belief  was  not  to  be  noised 
abroad.  It  was  to  remain  for  the  present  a  secret  of 
friendship.  It  appears  from  what  immediately  followed 
that  Jesus  did  not  seek  this  avowal  of  faith  in  his  Mes- 
siahship  on  his  own  account,  but  rather  for  the  sake  of 
his  disciples  themselves,  that  he  might  lead  them  on  into 
a  chapter  of  truth  which  he  had  not  yet  opened  and  for 
the  mere  hearing  of  which  they  needed  the  help  which 
would  come  from  his  acknowledgment  of  Messiahship. 

The  next  occasion  on  which  Jesus  is  credited  by  the 
synoptists  with  words  of  unique  personal  import  is  that 
when,  sitting  on  the  Mount  of  Olives,  he  spoke  of  the 
destruction  of  the  temple,  and  of  his  own  future.2  Two 
utterances  are  here  to  be  considered.  The  first  is  that 
which  affirms  the  imperishability  of  his  teaching:  "Heaven 
and  earth  shall  pass  away,  but  my  words  shall  not  pass 
away."8  It  is  most  natural  to  take  this  saying  in  connec- 
tion with  Mt.  II  '.27  in  the  Logia.  If  that  reflects  more 
than  a  prophetic  consciousness,  or  perhaps  we  should  say 
the  culmination  of  the  prophetic  consciousness,  so  does 
this. 

»Mk.  8:27-28;  Mt.   16:13-14;  Lk.  9:18-19. 

fMk.   13,  Mt.  24,  Lk.  21.  »  Mk.    13:31. 


/ 


I48  THE   HISTORICAL  JESUS 

The  second  word  in  the  Olivet  discourse  which  belongs 
in  the  group  under  discussion  is  this :  "Then  shall  they 
see  the  Son  of  Man  coming  in  the  clouds  with  power  and 
great  glory."1  Here  we  meet  the  title  "Son  of  Man,"  not 
indeed  for  the  first  time  in  the  common  tradition  of  the 
synoptists,2  but  for  the  first  time  where  its  source  and 
general  sense  seem  to  stand  revealed.  Not  only  the  title 
itself  but  the  "clouds  of  heaven"  and  the  purpose  of  the 
coming  on  clouds,  that  is,  the  entire  scene,  is  drawn  from 
Dan.  7:13-14.  The  main  thought  of  that  passage  in 
Daniel  is  plain :  the  being  who  receives  the  final  and 
everlasting  kingdom  is  the  representative  of  perfected 
humanity ;  he  comes  not  from  beneath,  as  the  "beasts" 
(7:3)  that  symbolize  the  worldly  and  ungodly,  but  from 
above,  with  the  clouds  of  heaven.  This  picture  is  Mes- 
sianic in  the  sense  that  it  has  the  note  of  finality,  of 
consummation. 

We  turn  from  the  Olivet  discourse  to  a  word  which 
Jesus  spoke  on  the  last  evening  of  his  life,  while  he  was 
with  the  Twelve  in  the  upper  room  and  while  his  thought 
was  upon  the  treachery  of  Judas:  "The  Son  of  Man 
goeth  even  as  it  is  written  of  him,  but  woe  unto  that  man 
through  whom  the  Son  of  Man  is  betrayed. "3  But  it  is 
nowhere  written  in  the  Old  Testament  that  one  called 
the  "Son  of  Man"  goes  to  death.*  Therefore,  if  Jesus 
used  this  title,  it  seems  that  he  must  have  used  it  as  a 
synonym  of  "Messiah."  There  are  in  the  Old  Testament 
certain  forecasts  of  the  Messiah's  suffering,  and  we  have 
already  seen  that  both  in  the  Logia  and  in  the  common 
tradition  of  the  synoptists  there  are  words  of  Jesus  which 
clearly  point  to  a  Messianic  claim.  It  seems  therefore 
that  in  this  instance  Jesus  used  the  title  "Son  of  Man"  in 
a  general  Messianic  sense. 

We  come  now  to  the  last  passage  of  the  present  group. 
At  the  trial  of  Jesus,  first  by  the  sanhedrin  and  then  by 
Pontius  Pilate,  the  synoptists  represent  him  as  having 

1  Mlc.    13:26;   Mt.   24:30;   Lk.   21:27. 

2  See  Mk.  2:5,   10,  28;   Mt.  9:6;   12:8;  Lk.   ^24;  6:5. 

*  Lk.  22:22  has  *aT<x  rb  itfmrntvov  instead  of  a  reference  to  the  Scrip- 
tures. This  more  philosophical  form,  akin  to  Greek  thought  rather  than 
to  the  Hebrew,  cannot  stand  as  against  that  of  Mk.    14:21   and  Mt.  26:24. 

«Cf.  Mk.  9:13. 


WHAT   JESUS   THOUGHT   OF   HIMSELF  I49 

answered  affirmatively  the  question  of  Caiaphas,  "Art 
thou  the  Christ?"1  and  the  question  of  Pilate,  "Art  thou 
the  king  of  the  Jews?"2  These  two  scenes  form  a  con- 
trast to  that  at  Caesarea  Philippi  in  this  sense  that,  while 
Jesus  there  tacitly  accepted  the  disciples'  avowal  of  be- 
lief in  his  Messiahship,  he  here,  in  the  presence  of  his 
enemies  and  in  the  most  solemn  manner,  affirms  his  Mes- 
siahship. He  knew  that  to  make  this  claim  before  the 
high  priest  would  cost  him  his  life.  We  have  no  right  to 
say  that  the  conviction  of  his  Messianic  call  was  any 
clearer  in  the  day  of  his  trial  than  it  was  at  Caesarea 
Philippi :  we  say  only  that  the  expression  of  it  was  the 
most  solemn  that  he  ever  made. 

The  data  which  we  have  now  considered  are  all  that 
the  triple  tradition  contains  which  imply  that  Jesus 
thought  of  himself  as  more  than  a  prophet.  His  works 
of  healing  fall  within  the  prophetic  office.  Such  works 
had  been  done  by  men  of  God  in  former  times,  and  such 
were  done  by  the  disciples  of  Jesus.  What  such  works 
were  thought  to  show  was  the  presence  of  God  with  the 
one  who  wrought  them,3  or,  otherwise  expressed,  they 
authenticated  one  as  a  prophet.4 

There  is  one  passage  in  the  common  tradition  of  the 
synoptists  in  which  Jesus  speaks  of  God  as  his  Father,6 
and  only  one.  But  it  is  not  clear  that  this  has  any  peculiar 
bearing  whatever  on  the  individual  relation  of  Jesus  to 
God.  For,  according  to  the  Logia,  Jesus  taught  his 
disciples  to  address  God  as  Father,8  nor  is  there  any  sug- 
gestion in  that  document,  or  in  the  common  synoptic 
tradition,  that  in  his  thought  the  fatherhood  of  God  was 
one  thing  for  them  and  something  essentially  different 
for  him. 

In  conclusion  on  this  part  of  our  sources  it  may  be  said 
that  in  the  common  synoptic  tradition  as  in  the  Logia 

1  Mlc.  14:61;  Mt.  26:63;  Lk.  22:67,  70.  The  terms  "Son  of  Man"  and 
"Messiah"  are  here  used  without  difference  of  meaning.  Luke's  divergent 
text  cannot  be  regarded  as  in  any  point  superior  to  that  of  Mark  and 
Matthew. 

*  Mk.   15:2,  Mt.  27:11,  Lk.  23:3. 

•  See  Acts  7 :9- 

«Lk.  7:16;  Mk.  6:15;  8:28. 
•Mk.  8:38;  Mt.   16:27;  Lk.  9:26. 
•ML  5:48;  Lk.  6:36. 


150  THE  HISTORICAL  JESUS 

Jesus  thinks  of  himself  as  a  prophet  and  thinks  of  himself 
also  as  the  Messiah.  This  latter  thought  is  more  explicit 
here  than  in  the  Logia,  but  we  cannot  say  that  it  is  more 
developed.  The  tone  of  finality  in  Mt.  1 1 :2J>  or  in  the 
manner  in  which  Jesus  contrasted  himself  with  the  former 
revelation  of  God,  carries  in  it  all  the  Messianic  meaning 
which  is  contained  in  Peter's  confession  at  Caesarea 
Philippi,  or  in  the  solemn  affirmation  before  the  sanhedrin. 

From  the  triple  tradition  we  pass  now  to  those  data 
which  are  found  in  one  or  two  of  the  synoptic  narratives 
but  not  in  all. 

In  Mark  and  Matthew1  Jesus  said,  speaking  of  a  cer- 
tain future  hour,  that  neither  the  angels  in  heaven  nor 
the  Son  knew  of  it ;  only  the  Father  knew.  But  this  term 
"Son"  and  the  juxtaposition  of  Son  and  Father  do  not 
take  us  beyond  that  spiritual  experience  of  Jesus  by  the 
Jordan  the  expression  of  which  was  suggested  by  Ps.  2. 
The  verse  belongs  with  those  already  considered  which 
reflect  a  Messianic  consciousness.  It  is  of  interest  to  note 
that  here  where  knoivlcdge  is  concerned  the  Son  is 
placed  above  the  angels.  The  word  is  of  kin  with  Mt. 
1 1 127,  and  breathes  the  consciousness  of  an  unique  office. 
Parallel  to  this  thought  is  the  teaching  of  Lk.  10 138-42. 
He  who  was  confident  that  he  knew  the  Father  as  no 
other  had  known  him  could  say  that  to  sit  at  his  feet  and 
hear  his  word,  as  Mary  did,  was  the  one  thing  needful. 
And  finally,  it  is  in  accord  with  the  Logia  and  with  the 
triple  tradition  when,  according  to  Luke  13:33,  Jesus 
classed  himself  with  the  prophets,  saying,  "It  cannot  be 
that  a  prophet  perish  out  of  Jerusalem,"  and  when, 
according  to  Matthew  28:8,  he  spoke  of  himself  as  a 
teacher. 

All  that  has  been  said  thus  far  in  the  present  chapter 
has  concerned  the  historical  mission  of  Jesus.  But  this 
unique  mission  in  which  Jesus  felt  himself  to  be  the  ful- 
filment of  the  highest  aspirations  of  his  people — did  it, 
in  his  own  thought,  imply  any  essential  difference  between 
him  and  his  fellowmen? 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  to  be  said  that,  so  far  as  our 

1Mk.    13:32;   Mt.   24:36. 


WHAT  JESUS   THOUGHT  OF   HIMSELF  151 

oldest  sources  are  concerned,  there  is  not  the  slightest 
indication    that    Jesus    ever    considered    this    question. 
There  is  no  indication  that  he  ever  said  a  word  on  the 
conditions  of  Messiahship — why  he  was  chosen  for  this 
mission  rather  than  any  one  else,  whether  it  was  because 
of  inner  purity,  or  because  his  being  was  different  from 
that  of  other  men.     His  followers  have  indulged  in  much  I 
speculation  along  this  line,  and  speculations  have  hard-j 
ened  into  dogmas,  but  Jesus  was  silent.    There  is  evi-; 
dence  that  he  thought  much  of  the  will  of  God  and  of 
conforming  his  will  to  the  Father's,  but  none  whatever 
jthat  he  discussed  with  himself  the  question  whether  his 
Ibeing  was  like  or  unlike  that  of  the  men  around  him. 

A  more  difficult  question  is  whether  Jesus  thought  of 
himself  as  wholly  different  from  other  men  in  character. 
The  Logia,  if  we  except  the  story  of  the  temptation,  has 
nothing  that  bears  directly  on  this  point.  If  Jesus  had 
there  presented  himself  as  the  judge  of  men,  that  would 
have  required  investigation  to  determine  whether  the 
function  of  universal  judge  implied  perfect  character,  but 
it  is  doubtful  whether  he  did  so  speak  of  himself.  For 
Mt.  7:23  is  not  supported  by  Lk.  13:25-27.  In  the 
former  passage  words  of  judgment  are  ascribed  to  Jesus ; 
but  in  the  parallel,  Jesus  speaks  in  a  parable  of  the  rela- 
tion of  a  lord  and  his  steward.  The  point  of  the  passage 
moreover  is  the  call  to  faithfulness,  not  the  decision  of 
the  question  who  is  to  judge  the  faithful  and  the  unfaith- 
ful. And  again,  in  Mt.  10:32-33;  Lk.  12:8-9,  Jesus 
speaks  of  confessing  or  denying  certain  men  in  the  pres- 
ence of  God,  which  language  appears  to  give  him  the 
function  of  a  witness  and  to  ascribe  judgment  to  God. 
It  may  be  noted  at  once  that  this  uncertainty  of  the  Logia 
is  found  also  in  various  passages  of  Matthew  and  Luke 
which  were  not  in  the  Logia.  Thus  in  Mt.  6:5  and 
18:35  it  is  God  who  either  forgives,  or  judges  and  exe- 
cutes, and  in  those  parables  of  Matthew  which  associate 
the  Son  of  Man  with  judgment,1  the  real  testing  and 
execution  are  left  to  angels.  In  Lk.  18 :8  the  avenger  of 
the  elect  is  God 

*Mt.  13:41,  49. 


152  THE   HISTORICAL   JESUS 

We  have  then  in  the  Logia  simply  the  story  of  the 
temptation  that  bears  on  the  point  in  hand.  With  this 
may  be  associated  one  word  in  the  common  synoptic 
tradition.1  To  the  rich  man  who  addressed  Jesus  as 
"Good  Teacher"  the  reply  was  made,  "Why  callest  thou 
me  good?  none  is  good  save  one,  God."  It  is  obvious , 
that  the  primary  purpose  of  Jesus  here  is  to  direct  the! 
man's  thought  to  God  as  the  one  perfect  standard  of! 
right.  Incidental  to  this  is  his  refusal  to  accept  for  him- 
self the  title  "good."  But  though  incidental,  this  word 
appears  to  be  significant  for  our  thought  of  Jesus.  If  we 
define  its  significance  in  harmony  with  the  story  of  the 
temptation  in  the  wilderness,  we  shall  say  that  it  implies 
a  sense  of  human  weakness  and  liability  to  sin.  It  does 
not  imply  a  consciousness  of  sin,  but  it  is  not  intelligible 
unless  behind  it  lay  a  consciousness  of  being  temptable. 
This  consciousness  would  be  ample  reason  for  rejecting 
the  unqualified  epithet  of  "good."  In  accord  with  the 
recognition  that  he  was  temptable  is  the  well  established 
fact  that  Jesus  prayed. 

Further  than  this  our  sources  do  not  directly  justify  us 
in  going.  To  believe  that  Jesus  was  the  purest  and  best 
of  mankind  is  required  both  by  the  story  of  his  life  and 
by  his  influence  on  the  world ;  but  that  he  regarded  him- 
self as  wholly  sinless  we  are  not  justified  in  affirming  on 
the  ground  of  his  own  words  and  deeds.  That  in  such 
crises  as  the  temptation  in  the  wilderness  and  the  night 
in  Gethsemane  he  was  conscious  of  utmost  loyalty  to 
God's  will  is  indeed  strong  evidence  that  in  the  interval 
between  these  two  scenes,  in  circumstances  of  less  terrible 
aspect,  his  inner  allegiance  was  unmarred.  And  the  idea 
of  this  spiritual  integrity,  preserved  by  struggle  and 
prayer,  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  refusal  to  be  called 
good.  For  the  sense  that  there  was  need  of  struggle  and 
need  of  prayer  would  not  allow  him  to  think  of  his  good- 
ness ab  on  the  same  level  with  the  unchangeable  goodness 
of  God.  Even  though  he  had  never  been  overcome,  he 
felt  that  he  might  be. 

We  are  now  at  the  end  of  what  the  historical  sources 

1  Mk.    10:17-22;   Mt.    19:16-22;  Lk.   18:18-23. 


WHAT  JESUS   THOUGHT   OF   HIMSELF  1 53 

have  to  teach  on  the  question  how  Jesus  regarded  him- 
self. We  shall  conclude  with  a  survey  of  the  ground 
which  has  been  covered. 

In  the  Logia,  in  the  common  tradition  of  the  synoptists, 
and  in  other  words  ascribed  to  Jesus  by  only  one  or  two 
of  the  Gospels,  there  is  extremely  little  reference  to  him- 
self.    The  bulk  of  the  teaching  is  impersonal,  and  from 
its  character  we  infer  that  the  speaker  was  a  prophet,  was 
the  greatest  of  the  prophets.     But  in  all  these  sources 
there   are   also   some   personal   assertions   or   allusions. 
From  these  we  learn  that  Jesus  explicitly  classed  himself \  -~ 
with  the  prophets  and  spoke  of  himself  as  a  teacher.     We 
learn  also,  both  from  the  Logia  and  from  the  oldest  Gos- 
pel, that  he  believed  himself  to  be  the  Messiah.     This  \  *~<2 
belief  was  not  privately  avowed  until  the  day  at  Caesarea- 
Philippi,  and  not  avowed  in  public  until  the  day  of  his( 
death,  and  even  then  not  spontaneously.    Jesus  never1 
defined  his  Messiahship.     The  withholding  of  the  claim   —  Q« 
to  be  Messiah  is  sufficient  evidence,  and  was  at  the  time 
sufficient  evidence,  that  he  did  not  share  the  popular  view. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  simple  fact  that  his  life  was  given- 
to  teaching,  of  which  his  deeds  furnished  visible  illustra- 
tion, makes  it  plain  that,  in  his  own  mind,  the  ministry  o£|  -  /f- 
the  Messiah  was  the  culmination  of  prophetic  ministry. 

As  to  the  nature  of  Jesus,  whether  it  was  different  • 
from  that  of  other  men,  there  is  no  evidence  in  our  sources 
that  this  was  ever  the  subject  of  remark  or  of  reflection 
on  his  part. 

That,  in  the  sphere  of  character,  Jesus  made  an  abso- 
lute separation  between  himself  and  others  we  are  not 
warranted  by  his  words  and  acts  in  affirming.  He  made  \ 
it  clear  that  he  was  acquainted  with  temptation  and  con-  | 
scious  of  needing  God's  help.  But  a  sense  of  creaturely 
dependence  is  by  no  means  inconsistent  with  a  conscious- 
ness of  perfect  moral  integrity,  and  such  a  consciousness, 
it  seems  to  us,  can  hardly  be  separated  from  the  un- 
clouded conviction  of  Jesus  that  he  knew  the  Father  as 
no  one  had  ever  known  him  and  that  he  could  impart  this 
saving  knowledge  to  others. 


CHAPTER  V 
THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS  FOR  HIS  PEOPLE 

We  have  seen  that  Jesus  thought  of  himself  as  a 
prophet  and  as  the  Messiah  of  his  people,  as  the  one 
chosen  to  complete  the  revelation  of  God  which  had  been 
imperfectly  made  known  in  former  times.  To  this  truth 
the  present  question  is  nearly  related.  As  the  final 
prophet  of  his  people,  what  was  his  ideal  for  them? 

In  seeking  to  answer  this  question  we  begin  with  the 
oldest  source,  the  Logia.  This  document,  miscellaneous 
in  character,  contains  no  formal  statement  of  the  thought 
of  Jesus  on  any  subject.  It  does  not  announce  his  ideal. 
It  contains  three  or  four  score  of  sayings  which  pro- 
foundly touch  many  sides  of  man's  life,  but  it  sets  no  one 
particular  truth  in  the  center.  It  must  therefore  be  re- 
garded with  great  care  if  we  are  to  derive  from  it  any 
clear  and  satisfactory  light  on  the  ideal  of  Jesus  for  his 
people. 

There  are  two  ways  of  approaching  Jesus'  ideal  as  far 
as  it  is  reflected  in  the  Logia.  One  is  to  take  the  various 
spiritual  utterances,  like  the  beatitude  for  those  who 
hunger  and  thirst  after  righteousness,  analyze  these 
utterances,  and  classify  their  content.  This  may  have 
been  the  way  that  a  thoughtful  hearer  actually  proceeded 
for  a  time.  Such  an  one  heard  new  and  beautiful  truths 
from  the  lips  of  Jesus,  compared  them,  more  or  less 
consciously,  with  similar  utterances  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  laid  them  up  in  memory  as  so  many  separate  teach- 
ings on  this  subject  and  on  that.  The  other  and  better 
way  to  the  goal  is  to  start  from  those  sayings  which  are 
personal  in  character  and  which  cannot  be  separated  from 
the  speaker.  Of  these  there  are  several  that  bear  on  the 
present  subject. 

The  first  is  given  by  Matthew  in  the  address  to  the 

i54 


THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS  FOR  HIS  PEOPLE       1 55 

disciples  when  they  were  sent  out  to  teach  and  to  heal  r1 
"A  disciple  is  not  above  his  master,  nor  a  servant  above 
his  lord.  It  is  enough  for  the  disciple  that  he  be  as  his 
master,  and  the  servant  as  his  lord."2  It  is  implied  in 
these  words  that  the  disciple  of  Jesus  can  become  like 
him,  and  that  to  be  like  him  is  the  goal  of  discipleship. 
The  application  of  this  principle  that  follows,  viz.  that  the 
disciple  is  to  expect  hardship  and  suffering  since  that  has 
been  the  lot  of  the  Master,  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  giving 
its  entire  scope.  It  is  simply  one  particular,  of  immediate 
practical  importance,  which  illustrates  the  principle. 

The  second  saying  of  this  group  is  given  by  Matthew 
in  the  same  address,3  though  Luke  puts  it  much  later 
when  the  consequences  of  following  Jesus  were  more  to 
be  feared  than  at  the  time  of  the  mission  of  the  Twelve.* 
The  saying  turns  on  the  thought  of  confessing  Jesus,  or 
denying  him,  before  men.  This  is  represented  as  of 
fundamental  importance,  for  it  is  implied  that  it  deter- 
mines one's  acceptance  or  rejection  by  God.  Yet  the 
character  of  the  confession  or  denial  is  not  indicated. 
Elsewhere  in  this  address  and  in  other  teaching  of  Jesus 
we  learn  what  is  meant.  He  that  doeth  the  will  of  the 
Father,  he  that  builds  on  the  words  of  Jesus,  he  that  is 
as  his  Master — he  it  is  who  confesses  him.5  Thus  it  is 
seen  to  be  a  matter  of  the  life,  not  of  the  lips. 

The  third  saying  is  that  of  Mt.  n  :2$-2j\  Lk.  10:21-22. 
Jesus  thanked  the  Father  that  he  had  revealed  truth  to 
his  disciples,  but  it  is  quite  manifest  that  he  thought  of 
the  Father's  revelation  as  made  through  him.  He  is  the 
one  who  knows  the  Father  and  who  can  reveal  him  to 
others. 

These  three  sayings  from  the  Logia  help  us  to  under- 
stand the  ideal  which  Jesus  had  for  his  people.  The 
disciple  is  to  know  the  Father  through  Jesus;  he  is  to 
make  a  living  confession  of  Jesus ;  he  is  to  be  like  Jesus. 
Hence  Jesus  could  say,  "He  that  receives  you  receives 

1  This  location  of  the  saying  as  well  as  Matthew's  version  of  it  is 
preferable  to  Luke's   (6:40). 

•  Mt.    10:32-33. 

♦Lk.   12:8-0.  5Mt.  7:21,  24;   10:25. 


I56  THE    HISTORICAL   JESUS 

me,  and  he  that  receives  me  receives  him  that  sent  me."1 
The  disciple  is  to  have  his  spirit  as  he  has  the  Father's 
spirit,  that  is  to  say,  he  is  to  have  the  spirit  of  the  Father 
through  him. 

Stated  then  in  the  simplest  terms,  the  ideal  of  Jesus 
for  his  people,  as  we  find  it  in  the  Logia,  was  that  they 
should  be  like  him.  It  was  a  personal  ideal.  It  was 
grounded  wholly,  so  far  as  we  can  see,  in  Jesus'  own 
spiritual  experience.  It  was  not  theoretical,  but  absolutely 
vital. 

Since  therefore  the  ideal  of  Jesus  for  his  people  arose 
out  of  his  own  inner  experience  as  a  flower  comes  forth 
out  of  the  hidden  roots  of  the  plant,  we  are  justified  in 
returning  to  the  impersonal  sayings  of  the  Logia  with 
the  presumption  that  they  had  a  personal  background, 
and  were  born  out  of  the  real  experience  of  a  living  man. 
There  are  some  sayings  in  the  Logia  that  obviously  can- 
not be  brought  under  this  head — savings  in  regard  to  the 
past  and  the  future,  and  sayings  that  interpret  points  of 
the  Law  or  touch  great  principles  of  right  and  justice. 
Thus,  when  Jesus  said  that  one  jot  should  not  pass  from 
the  Law  until  all  was  fulfilled,2  that  many  should  come 
from  the  east  and  the  west,  and  should  sit  down  with 
Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven,3 
and  that  it  should  be  more  tolerable  for  Sodom  in  the  day 
of  judgment  than  for  certain  Galilean  cities,4  and  other 
similar  words,  it  is  evident  that  his  thought  was  moving 
beyond  the  range  of  personal  experience.  But  in  the 
much  larger  class  of  passages  of  moral  and  spiritual 
import,  which  constituted  the  bulk  of  the  Logia,  we  are 
doubtless  justified  in  seeing  an  expression  of  what  he  had 
learned  and  felt  in  his  own  soul.  The  beatitudes  on  the 
poor  and  the  mourners,  and  on  those  who  hunger  and 
thirst  after  righteousness  ;5  the  injunctions  not  to  resist 
him  who  is  evil,6  to  love  one's  enemies,7  to  refrain  from 
judging,8  to  practice  unlimited  forgiveness,9  and  to  do  to 

1  Mt.   10:40;  Lk.   10:16.  •  Mt.  5:39-40;  Lk.  6:27-30. 

*Mt.   s :  1 8 ;  Lk.   16:17.  T  Mt.  5:44-48;   Lk.  6:32-36. 

•Mt.   8:11-12;   Lk.    13:28,  29.  •  Mt.  7:1-2;   Lk.  6:37-38. 

*  Mt.   10:15;  Lk.   10:12.  •  Mt.  18:21-22;  Lk.   17:4. 
•Mt.  5:3,  4.  6;  Lk.  6:20-21. 


THE   IDEAL  OF  JESUS  FOR   HIS   PEOPLE  1 57 

others  what  one  would  desire  from  them  j1  the  exhortation 
regarding  anxiety,2  the  appeal  to  trust  God's  constant 
and  minute  care,3  all  words  on  the  power  of  faith4  and 
the  absolute  value  of  reality  in  religion5 — these  and  other 
fundamental  teachings  on  the  individual  and  social  life 
we  have  reason  to  believe  were  born  out  of  Jesus'  own 
deep  experience.  This  is  the  great  ground,  we  may  well 
believe,  why  people  felt  a  tone  of  authority  in  his  teach- 
ing.9    He  spoke  not  by  rote  but  out  of  the  heart. 

Another  passage  of  very  peculiar  value  remains  to  be 
noted  in  this  connection,  and  that  is  the  Lord's  Prayer.7 
If  we  approach  this  from  the  side  of  those  great  utter- 
ances of  the  Logia  which  present  the  ideal  of  Jesus  for 
his  people  as  the  reflex  of  his  own  inner  life,  and  remem- 
ber the  stress  which  he  laid  on  reality,  we  shall  regard  it 
as  drawn  from  his  own  experience — as  the  sort  of  prayer 
that  he  himself  had  prayed,  it  may  be  for  many  years. 
The  petition  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins  may  be  an  excep- 
tion—certainly is  an  exception — unless  we  hold,  as  per- 
haps we  should,  that  Jesus  with  his  unique  sense  of  the 
holiness  of  God  may  have  accounted  as  sin  even  such  a 
momentary  entertainment  of  wrong  thoughts  as  vexed 
his  soul  in  the  wilderness  and  the  conscious  need  of 
effort  to  obtain  a  perfect  acquiescence  in  the  Divine  will, 
as  in  the  hour  in  Gethsemane. 

It  appears  then  that  so  far  as  the  ideal  of  Jesus  for  his 
people  can  be  learned  from  the  Logia  it  was  a  purely 
religious  ideal,  born  of  his  own  experience.  It  was  re- 
lated indeed  to  the  domestic,  social,  political  and  national 
life,  but  it  was  not  an  ideal  for  any  one  of  these  spheres. 
It  was  rather  the  essential  condition  of  right  ideals  for  all 
of  them — for  the  home  and  society  and  the  state. 

We  have  thus  far  taken  no  account  of  one  term  that  is 
used  in  the  Logia,  though  it  is  a  term  which  has  often 
served  as  the  starting-point  in  discussions  of  the  ideal  of 

«Mt  7:12;  Lie.  6:31. 

*  Mt.  6:25-33;  Lk.   12:22-31. 

« Mt.  7:7-11;   10:29-30;  Lk.   10:9-13;  12:6-8. 
4E.g.,  Mt.  17:20;  Lk.  17:6. 
•Mt.  7:21,  24-27;  Lk.  6:46,  47-9. 

•  E.g.,  Mk.   1  -.22,  27. 

T  Mt.  6:9-13;   Lk.    11:2-4. 


I58  THE   HISTORICAL  JESUS 

Jesus,  or  even  as  synonymous  with  that  ideal,  viz.  the 
term  "kingdom  of  God."  But  this  subordination,  so  far 
at  least  as  the  Logia  is  concerned,  is  in  accordance  with 
the  data.  Let  these  now  be  brought  forward.  Take 
first  the  passages  in  which  the  sense  of  the  term  is  plain. 
When  Jesus  declared  that  many  should  come  from  the 
east  and  the  west  and  should  sit  down  with  Abraham  and 
Isaac  and  Jacob  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  but  that  the 
sons  of  the  kingdom  should  be  cast  forth  into  the  outer 
darkness,1  the  term  is  a  simple  equivalent  of  "heaven." 
With  this  use  of  the  term  we  have  here  no  further 
concern. 

Again,  there  are  two  passages  in  the  Logia  where  the 
term  has  a  present  significance  which  is  not  doubtful. 
These  are  the  petition  in  the  Lord's  Prayer,  "Thy  king- 
dom come,"2  and  the  exhortation,  "Seek  ye  his  king- 
dom."3 Matthew's  amplification  of  the  petition  with  the 
words  "Thy  will  be  done"  explains  the  petition.  This  we 
are  warranted  in  saying  by  passages  in  the  same  source 
which  represent  man's  supreme  duty  as  the  doing  of  God's 
will  which  Jesus  had  made  known.4  In  like  manner 
Matthew's  amplification  of  the  other  saying  suggests  its 
meaning.  Where  Luke  says  "Seek  ye  his  kingdom," 
Matthew  has  "Seek  ye  his  kingdom  and  his  righteous- 
ness." One  who  seeks  and  finds  God's  righteousness, 
finds  his  kingdom.  Thus  in  both  these  sayings  of  the 
Logia  the  "kingdom  of  God"  is  the  rule  of  God  in  man's 
heart.     When  his  will  is  done,  his  kingdom  has  come. 

With  these  passages  may  be  classed  that  which  likens 
the  kingdom  to  leaven,5  and  probably  also  that  beatitude 
which  promises  the  kingdom  to  the  poor.6 

In  the  two  passages  that  remain  to  be  noted,  the  term 
"kingdom"  may  still  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  rule — God's 
rule  in  man's  heart — but  the  context  suggests  in  each  case 
that  this  rule  has  a  unique  realization  in  and  through 
Jesus.  It  is  the  consciousness  of  this  truth  that  finds 
expression  in  the  words  of  Jesus  to  the  Twelve  when  he 

1Mt.  8:11-12;  Lk.  13:28-29.      *Mt.  7:24-27;  11:25-27;  Lk.  6:47-49;  10:21-2*. 
•Mt.  6:10;  Lk.   11:2.  6  Mt.  13:33;  Lk.  13:20-21. 

•Mt.  6:33;  Lk-  12:31.  aMt.  5:3;  Lk.  6:20. 


THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS  FOR   HIS   PEOPLE  1 59 

declared  that  the  kingdom  was  at  hand,  or  had  come 
nigh,1  and  also  in  that  saying  wherein  he  contrasted  his 
disciples  with  the  Baptist — "he  that  is  least  in  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  is  greater  than  he."2  It  is  impossible  to 
suppose  that  he  compared  his  disciples  with  John  in  the 
simple  matter  of  conformity  to  God's  will.  John  was 
surely  in  the  kingdom  of  God  in  the  sense  that  he  was 
obedient  to  God's  will  as  made  known  to  him  in  Law  and 
Prophets ;  but  he  did  not  belong  to  the  New  Era  in  which 
God's  will  was  uniquely  made  known  in  Jesus.  Thus  in 
both  these  passages  the  term  "kingdom  of  God"  acquires 
a  new  meaning  through  its  association  with  Jesus.  It 
still  denotes  God's  rule  in  the  heart,  but  God's  rule  as 
historically  realized. 

Thus  it  is  seen  that  Jesus'  use  of  the  term  "kingdom  of 
God"  confirms  what  had  previously  been  said  about  his 
ideal  for  Israel. 

We  pass  now  from  the  Logia  to  the  common  tradition 
of  the  synoptists.  What  light  does  this  throw  on  the 
ideal  of  Jesus  for  his  people  ?  It  is  to  be  remarked,  in  the 
first  place,  that  here,  even  as  in  the  Logia,  those  words  of 
Jesus  in  which  his  thought  for  his  people  is  most  pro- 
nounced and  comprehensive  present  that  thought  or  ideal 
in  a  personal  form.  Thus  he  said  to  his  disciples  and  to 
the  multitude  that  he  required  men  to  follow  him  at  all 
hazards,3  and  that  nothing  should  be  allowed  to  make  them 
ashamed  of  him  or  of  his  words.4  .The  rich  ruler  who 
had  kept  the  commandments  of  the  Law  he  summoned 
to  follow  him.6  Another  scene  that  presents  his  thought 
even  more  completely  is  that  in  which  his  mother  and 
brothers  sought  to  have  him  come  forth  to  them  from  the 
house  where  he  was  teaching.6  Looking  about  on  those 
who  sat  around  him  he  said,  "Behold  my  mother  and  my 
brothers!  For  whosoever  shall  do  the  will  of  God,  the 
same  is  my  brother  and  sister  and  mother."  Surely  they 
who  had  come  into  the  near  relationship  to  him  of 
brother  and  sister  and  mother  were  actually  realizing  his 

»Mt.  10:7;  Lk.  10:9.  *Mk.   8:38;  Mt.    16:27;   Lk.  9:26. 

7  Mt.  1 1  :i  1 ;  Lk.  7:28.  B  Mk.  10:21;  Mt.   19:21;  Lk.   18:22. 

•Mk.  8:34;  Mt.   16:24;  Lk.  9:23.  8Mk.  3:34;  Mt.   12:49;  Lk.  8:21. 


l6o  THE    HISTORICAL   JESUS 

ideal  for  his  people.  And  that  ideal  bound  them  to  him 
as  it  bound  them  to  God.  It  was  personal,  and  it  was 
religious.  To  hear  him  receptively  was  to  do  the  will  of 
God.  There  is  no  scene  in  the  triple  tradition  that  is 
more  impressive  and  illuminating  than  this.  There  is  no 
uncertainty  in  the  words  of  Jesus  or  in  the  situation  in 
which  they  were  spoken.     All  is  clear  and  explicit. 

It  seems  fitting  to  place  by  the  side  of  this  scene  that 
other  equally  characteristic  one  where  Jesus  took  little 
children  in  his  arms  and  said,  "To  such  belongeth  the 
kingdom  of  God."1  The  kingdom  is  something  that  can 
be  received  and  possessed,  but  only  as  a  little  child  re- 
ceives, that  is,  humbly  and  with  a  trustful  heart.  Now 
the  people  seated  around  Jesus  in  the  former  scene  were 
receiving  his  word  in  such  a  spirit  that  he  referred  to 
them  as  doing  God's  will.  A  comparison  of  the  two 
scenes  suggests  that,  in  the  passage  about  the  children, 
Jesus  meant  by  "kingdom"  just  the  Father's  rule  in  the 
heart  and  nothing  else.2 

But  we  have  not  yet  exhausted  the  data  in  the  com- 
mon synoptic  tradition  which  present  the  ideal  of  Jesus 
for  his  people  in  a  personal  form.  Conspicuous  among 
these  data  is  the  declaration  that  the  Son  of  Man  came  to 
minister.3  This  is  given  as  the  ground  of  his  appeal  to 
the  Twelve  to  regard  the  way  of  service  as  the  way  to 
true  greatness.  Twice,  according  to  the  common  synop- 
tic tradition,  he  emphasized  this  principle.  Once  was  in 
Capernaum,  after  the  question  of  their  individual  great- 
ness had  been  discussed  by  the  Twelve  on  the  way 
thither,4  and  the  other  time,  just  referred  to,  was  when, 
on  the  way  to  Jerusalem,  James  and  John  sought  assur- 
ance from  the  Master  that  they  should  have  the  first 
places  in  his  kingdom.  Here  he  bases  his  appeal  upon 
his  own  example.  The  principle  of  service  is  to  be 
fundamental  in  their  lives  because  it  has  been  funda- 
mental in  the  life  of  the  Son  of  Man.  This  is  not  the 
whole  of  his  ideal  for  his  people,  but  it  is  an  essential 

1  Mk.  10:14;  Mt.   19:14;  Lk.  18:16. 

a  Cf.  Mk.  4:11,  30;    10:23  w>'h  the  parallels  in  Mt.  and  Lk. 

1  Mk.   10:45;   Mt.  20:28;   Lk.  22:27. 

«Mk.  9:33-34;  Mt.   18:1;  Lk.  9:46. 


THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS  FOR  HIS  PEOPLE       l6l 

part  of  it,  and  it  is  purely  personal.  It  was  the  very 
culmination  of  this  thought  when,  on  the  last  evening, 
Jesus  gave  his  disciples  bread  and  wine  as  symbols  of 
his  body  and  blood.  The  gift  of  these  implied  that  he 
was  about  to  give  the  supreme  illustration  of  willing 
devotion  to  the  principle  of  service.  The  supper  was 
the  consecration  of  his  ideal  on  its  social  side.  By 
partaking  of  the  bread  and  wine  they  were  solemnly 
pledged  to  him  in  his  capacity  of  a  ministering  friend. 

We  may  note,  in  passing,  what  the  ideal  of  Jesus  for 
his  people  implied  in  relation  to  the  Old  Dispensation. 
The  data  on  this  point  are  incidental  and  doubtless 
fragmentary.  We  are  not  to  suppose  that  they  are  a 
formal  and  complete  statement  of  the  thought  of  Jesus 
on  the  relation  of  his  ideal  to  the  Old  Covenant.  But 
though   incidental,   they  are   important. 

When  the  disciples  of  Jesus  were  criticized  because 
they  did  not  fast,  as  did  the  Pharisees  and  the  disciples 
of  John,  Jesus  defended  them  on  the  ground  that  the 
present  was  a  time  for  joy.1  Therefore  to  require 
fasting  of  his  disciples  would  be  as  unfit  and  injurious 
as  to  use  unfulled  cloth  in  patching  an  old  garment,  or 
to  put  new  wine  into  old  wine  skins.2  The  fasting  in 
question  was  doubtless  not  that  which  the  Law  re- 
quired on  the  great  day  of  atonement,3  but  some  tradi- 
tional institution.  This  fact,  however,  does  not  affect 
the  principle.  The  word  of  Jesus  excludes  all  fasting, 
for  fasting  was  to  express  sorrow  of  heart,  but  his 
disciples  were  glad.  Nor  was  this  gladness  to  be 
temporary,  for  it  was  due  to  him  and  his  teaching. 
True,  he  was  not  to  remain  with  them  in  person,  but 
his  teaching  could  not  be  torn  from  their  souls,  and 
through  that  teaching  they  would  always,  in  a  sense, 
have  him. 

That  Jesus  expected  the  ground-tone  of  the  life  of 
his  disciples  to  be  one  of  gladness  and  not  sorrow  is 
implied  in  the  saying  of  the  common  tradition  that  they 
who    followed   him    should   receive   in   the   present    an 

1  Mlc.  2:18-19;  Mt.  9:1s;  Lk.  5:34. 

a  Mk.  2:21-22;  Mt.  9:16-17;  Lk.  5:36-38.  "Lev.   16:29. 

II 


l62  THE   HISTORICAL   JESUS 

hundred  fold  for  all  that  they  must  relinquish,  and,  in 
the  future,  eternal  life.1  This  promise,  as  regards  the 
present,  may  well  have  sprung-  out  of  his  own  ex- 
perience. He  had  left  house  and  brothers  and  sisters 
and  mother  for  the  sake  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  and 
had  he  not  received  an  hundred  fold?  What  could  be 
compared  to  the  joy  of  seeing  his  disciples  come  into 
the  possession  of  his  own  trust  in  God?  What  would 
have  been  to  him  an  equivalent  in  houses  and  lands  of 
the  joy  of  hearing  the  confession  of  Peter  at  Caesarea 
Philippi?  What  could  the  present  offer  that  would  so 
fill  his  heart  with  thanksgiving  as  the  evidence  he  had 
that  the  Father  had  revealed  a  knowledge  of  his  king- 
dom to  the  disciples?  If  then  his  disciples  followed  him, 
if  they  confessed  him  in  their  lives — to  use  the  figure  of 
the  Logia — he  could  assure  them,  on  the  ground  of  his 
own  experience,  that  they  would  receive  an  hundred  fold 
for  all  that  this  course  required  them  to  give  up.  Jesus 
felt  that  with  his  work  a  New  Era  had  begun,2  and  that 
one  mark  of  this  New  Era  was  gladness. 

We  have  now  examined  the  Logia  and  the  common 
tradition  of  the  synoptists  to  learn  what  ideal  Jesus 
had  for  his  people.  We  have  yet  to  consider  certain 
material  which  is  peculiar  to  Matthew  or  to  Luke,  but 
which  is  historically  accredited. 

The  single  tradition  of  Matthew  has  nothing  to  put  by 
the  side  of  what  the  Logia  and  the  common  synoptic 
tradition  give  us  in  regard  to  Jesus'  ideal  for  his  people. 
It  has  suggestive  details,  but  no  clear  commanding  utter- 
ance on  the  subject.8  What  it  has,  however,  falls  into 
line  with  the  teaching  of  the  sources  which  have  been 
examined. 

In  the  address  concerning  scribes  and  Pharisees  Mat- 
thew has  these  two  sayings :  "Be  not  ye  called  Rabbi,  for 
one  is  your  teacher,  and  all  ye  are  brethren.  And  call  no 
man  your  father  on  the  earth,  for  one  is  your  Father, 
which  is  in  heaven."*    The  bearing  of  these  words  on 

1  Mk.  10:30;  ML  10:20;  Lk.  18:30. 
aMt.   11:13;  Lk.   16:16. 
3  On  Mt.  11:28-30,  see  pp.  144-145,  note, 
4Mt.   23:8. 


THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS  FOR  HIS  PEOPLE       163 

the  present  subject  is  that  they  assert  the  supremacy  of 
the  teachership  of  Jesus,1  a  consciousness  of  his  mission 
which  we  have  found  already  in  the  Logia.  And  here, 
as  in  that  document,  the  fatherhood  of  God  stands  in 
close  connection  with  the  teachership  of  Jesus.  It  is  not 
indeed  directly  suggested  that  the  subject  of  his  teaching 
is  the  character  of  God,  and  in  this  respect  the  passage  is 
not  so  important  as  Mt.  1 1 127,  but  it  is  parallel  to  the 
Logia  and  the  triple  tradition  in  its  general  suggestion 
that  the  ideal  of  Jesus  for  his  people  was  something  which 
they  were  to  acquire  through  personal  contact  with  him. 

As  to  the  "kingdom  of  God,"  the  single  tradition  of 
Matthew  brings  us  two  parables — The  Hid  Treasure  and 
The  Goodly  Pearl2 — which  represent  that  kingdom  as  the 
highest  good  and  which  are  therefore  in  intimate  accord 
with  those  passages  in  the  Logia  and  the  common  synop- 
tic tradition  in  which  the  kingdom  of  God  is  thought  of 
as  God's  rule  in  man.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Jesus 
regarded  this  identification  of  man's  will  with  God  as 
indeed  the  highest  good. 

But  Matthew  has  two  other  passages — The  Tares  in 
the  Wheat  and  the  Drag-net3 — which  also  have  an  indirect 
bearing  on  the  ideal  of  Jesus  for  his  people.  According 
to  the  Logia,  the  Baptist  announced  a  radical  separation 
of  society  at  the  Messiah's  advent  ;4  but  in  these  passages 
Jesus  presents  a  different  view  of  his  mission.  His  king- 
dom is  not  to  be  like  a  field  of  wheat  unmixed  with  any 
weeds,  or  a  net  that  contains  only  good  fish.  Therefore 
his  ideal  for  his  people  does  not  contemplate  a  new  sort 
of  external  environment:  the  old  environment,  which  is 
both  bad  and  good,  is  to  remain. 

The  single  tradition  of  Luke  has  two  passages  which 
are  of  the  first  importance  for  the  question  now  before 
us,  as  well  as  several  which  only  duplicate  the  thought  of 
those  which  we  have  found  in  the  Logia  and  the  common 
synoptic  tradition.  To  note  the  latter  group  first.  In  a 
sermon  which  Luke  puts  in  the  synagogue  at  Nazareth5 

1  Implied  also  in  Mt.  5:17.  *  Mt.   13:24-30,  47-50. 

*Mt.  13:44-46.  *Mt.  3:12;  Lk.  3:17. 

•The  oldest  Gospel,  followed  by  Matthew,  puts  the  beginning  of  the 
ministry  of  Jesus  in  Capernaum.     Mk.    1:21;   Mt.   4:12-13. 


164  THE   HISTORICAL   JESUS 

Jesus  took  as  his  text  the  opening  paragraph  of  Is.  61. 
This  is  the  passage  that  seems  to  have  determined  the 
form  of  the  vision  which  Jesus  had  by  the  Jordan,  and 
to  this  passage  he  may  also  have  referred  in  his  reply  to 
the  message  of  the  Baptist,  as  reported  in  the  Logia.  The 
use  of  the  passage  by  Jesus  throws  light  on  his  ideal  for 
his  people  no  less  than  on  his  thought  of  himself.  He 
said  that  the  prophet's  word  was  fulfilled  in  their  ears. 
Accordingly,  the  release  of  captives  here  mentioned,  the 
recovering  of  sight  to  the  blind,  and  the  liberation  of  the 
bruised,  are  to  be  understood,  primarily,  in  a  spiritual 
sense.  If  this  be  correct,  then  the  suggestion  of  the  pas- 
sage is  that  Jesus'  great  desire  for  his  people  was  to  have 
them  come  into  a  state  of  freedom  and  vision  in  their 
relation  to  God.  A  second  word  in  this  group  is  the 
beatitude  on  those  who  hear  the  word  of  God  and  keep 
it.1  This  is  obviously  parallel  to  that  scene  in  the  com- 
mon synoptic  tradition  where  Jesus  owned  as  his  true 
relatives  those  who  did  the  will  of  God.  And  finally, 
Luke's  word  on  counting  the  cost  of  discipleship  before- 
hand2 is  in  line  with  the  Logia  and  with  the  common 
synoptic  tradition.  Its  suggestion  regarding  the  ideal  of 
Jesus  is  indirect,  viz.  that  this  ideal  is  associated  with 
Jesus  himself  and  that  its  attainment  calls  for  whole- 
liearted  devotion  to  him. 

We  turn  now  to  the  two  more  significant  texts  in 
Luke's  peculiar  material.  One  is  the  inimitable  story  of 
what  took  place  in  the  home  of  Mary  and  Martha.3  This 
has  all  the  originality  and  clearness  of  that  other  scene 
when  Jesus  sat  among  receptive  listeners.  Mary  re- 
clined at  his  feet  and  received  his  word.  Martha  took 
thought  for  many  things  to  set  before  her  guests.  Jesus, 
gently  rebuking  her,  said  that  but  few  things  were  need- 
ful, or  even  one.  It  is  obvious  from  the  next  words  that 
this  clause  "even  one"  has  a  double  meaning.  One 
course  only  was  needful  for  their  supper,  one  thing  only 
was  needful  for  their  higher  life,  and  that  one  thing 
Mary  had   chosen.      It  was   to  learn   the   will  of  God 

1Lk.   11:27-28.  2Lk.   14:28-33. 

8  Lk.   10:38-42.     John   (11  :i)   puts  this  home  in   Bethany  near  Jerusalem. 


THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS  FOR  HIS  PEOPLE       165 

through  Jesus.  This  we  may  safely  supply  from  the 
united  evidence  of  the  Logia  and  the  common  synoptic 
tradition.  The  great  word  of  Lk.  10:22  would  alone 
warrant  us  in  assuming  that  what  Jesus  had  been  saying 
in  the  home  of  the  two  sisters  was  about  the  heavenly 
Father  and  the  religious  life. 

The  other  word  of  the  Lucan  tradition  which  bears  on 
our  subject  is  that  which  was  addressed  to  certain 
Pharisees  who  had  asked  when  the  kingdom  of  God  was 
to  come.  Jesus  said :  "The  kingdom  of  God  cometh  not 
with  observation :  neither  shall  they  say,  Lo,  here !  or, 
There!  for  lo,  the  kingdom  of  God  is  within  you."1 
Whether  we  translate  "within  you"  or  "in  the  midst  of 
you"  we  come  at  last  to  the  same  result ;  the  kingdom  of 
God  is  inner  and  spiritual.  If  it  was  at  that  moment  in 
the  midst  of  the  auditors  of  Jesus,  it  was  there  because 
it  was  in  his  soul  and  planted  in  the  souls  of  his  disciples. 
If  then  we  describe  the  ideal  of  Jesus  for  his  people  by 
the  term  "kingdom  of  God,"  we  say  nothing  different 
from  the  teaching  of  those  passages  which  describe  it  as 
doing  the  will  of  God  or  confessing  Jesus,  as  learning 
of  the  Father  through  him  and  living  as  he  lived. 

It  remains  to  sum  up  briefly  the  results  reached  in  the 
examination  of  the  various  sources.  It  is  very  significant 
that  not  only  the  Logia  and  the  common  synoptic  tradi- 
tion but  also  the  other  sources  from  which  Matthew  and 
Luke  drew,  all  witness  to  the  same  general  ideal  of  Jesus 
for  his  people.  That  ideal  is,  first  of  all,  an  ideal  for 
the  inner  life.  It  is  religious:  it  concerns  a  man's  rela- 
tion to  God  and  his  relation  to  his  fellowmen.  If  we 
designate  these  two  relationships  as  religious  and  moral, 
it  must  be  remembered  that,  in  the  thought  of  Jesus,  the 
spirit  and  the  motive  in  both  are  the  same.  Again,  the 
ideal  of  Jesus  is  not  only  an  ideal  for  the  entire  inner 
life ;  it  is  also  an  ideal  realized  in  him  and  to  be  realized 
through  him.  It  is  inseparable  from  him.  The  relation 
to  him  of  those  who  may  hope  to  realize  his  ideal  is  one 
of  life  and  death.     On  this  aspect  of  the  ideal  the  utmost 

1  Lk.   17:20-21. 


1 66  THE   HISTORICAL   JESUS 

emphasis  is  laid.  And  finally,  the  ideal  of  Jesus  sprang 
out  of  his  knowledge  of  God — his  character  and  will — 
and  there  is  no  reason  to  think  that  this  knowledge  was 
attained  otherwise  than  by  the  way  of  personal  experience. 

It  is  obvious  that  this  ideal  was  widely  unlike  the  pop- 
ular dream  of  a  Messianic  kingdom.  The  most  that  they 
had  in  common  was  that  both  looked  toward  a  better 
state  in  Israel.  But  one  was  prevailingly  outward,  polit- 
ical, national ;  the  other  prevailingly  inner,  spiritual,  and 
therefore  essentially  universal  in  its  scope.  The  one  was 
to  be  realized  from  without,  the  other  from  within. 

Whether  Jesus,  at  any  time,  thought  that  this  spiritual 
ideal  would  work  itself  out  in  a  new  and  glorious  Jewish 
state,  there  is  no  evidence  to  determine  in  an  absolute 
manner.  The  Logia  speaks  of  the  "day  of  the  Son  of 
Man,"  which  is  associated  with  judgment,1  but  it  never 
says  what  lies  beyond  it;  and  its  clearest  references  to 
judgment  do  not  allude  to  the  day  of  the  Son  of  Man, 
and  they  look  entirely  away  from  the  earth.2  In  the 
common  tradition  of  the  synoptists  also  there  are  two 
references  to  a  coming  of  the  Son  of  Man,3  but  the  only 
thought  associated  with  this  is  the  thought  of  judgment. 

We  do  not  need  to  pursue  this  inquiry  further  at 
present.  The  ideal  of  Jesus  for  his  people  is  clearly 
deducible  from  his  words,  and  we  should  not  obscure  it 
by  association  with  questions  that  certainly  were  not 
prominent  in  his  thought.  His  great  concern  for  men 
was  immediate  and  practical ;  he  had  little  to  say  of  the 
details  of  any  future  state  of  his  people,  whether  here  or 
hereafter. 

The  ideal  of  Jesus  for  his  people  was,  in  regard  to 
spirituality,  in  line  with  Is.  61  :i-3,  but  both  in  its  personal 
association  with  himself  and  in  its  claim  to  knowledge  of 
God  it  transcended  all  prophetic  foreshadowings.  The 
tone  of  authority  and  finality  in  the  words  of  Jesus  sprang 
out  of  the  conviction  that  he  had  come  to  know  God  as 
no  one  else  had  known  him.     What  it  was  in  God  that 

*Mt.   24:27,  37-39,   40-41,  43-Si;   Lk.    17:24.  26-27,   34-351    ^2:42-46. 
3  Mt.  6:20-21;  8:11-12;    10:32-33;   Lk.   12:33;    13:28-29;    12:8-9. 
•  Mk.  8:38;   13:26;   Mt   16:27;  24:30;   Lk.  9:26;   21:27. 


THE   IDEAL  OF  JESUS   FOR   HIS   PEOPLE  167 

he  had  seen  as  no  one  else  before  him  had  seen  can  be 
expressed  in  the  single  word  "fatherhood."  This  truth 
is  stamped  deeply  on  the  Logia1  and  on  Luke's  peculiar 
material.2  We  may  say  that  Jesus'  ideal  for  his  people 
flowered  out  of  the  fatherhood  of  God,  as  that  had  been 
apprehended  by  him  in  his  own  spiritual  life. 

xMt.  5:44-48;  6:9,  36,  32;  7:11;  11:25-27;  Lk.  6:22,  36;  11:2;  12:24,  30; 

11:13;  10:21-22. 

aE.g.,  Lk.  15. 


CHAPTER  VI 
THE  RESOURCES  AND  THE  METHOD  OF  JESUS 

With  what  equipment  and  in  what  ways  did  Jesus 
seek  to  realize  his  ideal  for  the  people  round  about  him? 
In  endeavoring  to  answer  this  question  our  first  duty  is 
to  examine  the  Logia.  We  are  here  confronted  by  a 
number  of  facts  which  bear  on  the  resources  of  Jesus. 

Doubtless  the  most  characteristic  feature  of  the  Logia 
— and  we  may  believe  that  it  was  most  characteristic  of 
the  preaching  of  Jesus — is  its  disclosure  of  God,  more 
particularly  of  his  limitless  goodness.  It  was  a  sense  of 
this  goodness  which  made  the  first  word  of  Jesus  in  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  "Blessed,"  and  promised  the  king- 
dom of  God  to  the  poor,  comfort  to  mourners,  and  satis- 
faction to  those  who  hunger  and  thirst  after  righteous- 
ness.1 The  fact  of  this  goodness,  manifested  alike  to  the 
evil  and  the  good  in  the  commonest  mercies  of  life,  was 
the  basis  of  the  plea  of  Jesus  that  men  should  rise  to  a 
life  of  unselfish  love.2  This  divine  goodness  determined 
every  clause  of  the  prayer  which  Jesus  gave  his  disciples 
as  a  pattern  for  their  prayers.3  It  inspires  the  confidence 
that  says  "Father;"  it  makes  it  forever  natural  for  the 
best  of  men  to  utter,  first  of  all,  the  petitions,  "Thy  king- 
dom come,  thy  will  be  done ;"  it  is  this  which  justifies 
every  child  of  earth  in  asking  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins 
with  the  same  absolute  trust  that  he  has  in  asking  for 
daily  bread;  and  it  is  this  also — this  fact  of  the  fatherly 
goodness  of  God — that  makes  the  language  of  ideal 
prayer  simple  and  quiet.  Again,  it  was  in  view  of  the 
loving  thoughtfulness  of  God  that  Jesus  sought  to  lift 
men  above  anxiety  for  the  material  necessities  of  life  into 

*Mt.  5:3.  4.  6. 

2Mt.   5:44-48. 

'  Mt.  6:9-13;  Lk.    11:2-4. 

168 


K 


RESOURCES  AND  METHOD  OF  JESUS  169 

an  atmosphere  of  serenity,  that  they  might  be  wholly  free 
for  the  present  day  and  duty.1  It  is  difficult  to  read  this 
passage  and  not  feel  that  it  reflects  a  habit  of  thought, 
and  that  it  admits  us  into  many  a  meditation  of  Jesus  in 
the  years  before  he  came  to  the  Jordan  to  acknowledge 
his  longing  for  the  kingdom  of  God. 

The  same  style  of  argument  is  used  by  Jesus  in  another 
passage  of  the  Logia  that  may  summarize  many  an  earnest 
talk.  If  men  give  good  gifts  to  their  children,  how  much 
more  shall  the  heavenly  Father  give  to  those  who  ask  him.2 
Thus  the  fatherly  goodness  of  God  is  the  sufficient  reason 
for  prayer,  and  the  ground  of  assurance  that  no  one  asks 
in  vain.  The  disciple  should  not  fear  even  among  mortal 
foes,  for  he  is  of  more  value  than  many  sparrows,  and 
yet  God  notes  a  sparrow's  fall.3  Finally,  it  is  still  the 
goodness  of  God  that  is  Jesus'  text  in  his  story  of  the 
man  who,  having  a  hundred  sheep,  lost  one.4  As  a  man 
seeks  his  lost  sheep,  so  God  in  his  great  love  seeks  the 
publican  and  the  sinner. 

So  the  Logia  teaches  that  one  of  the  resources  of  Jesus 
— perhaps  the  very  greatest — was  his  knowledge  of  God. 
He  himself  believed  that  this  knowledge  was  unique,5 
that  it  surpassed  all  that  had  been  known  by  prophets  and 
wise  men  of  old.6 

It  should  never  be  forgotten  that  this  knowledge  of  God 
is  knowledge  of  his  character,  not  of  his  works  nor  of  his 
ways.  There  is,  in  the  Logia,  not  only  no  indication  that 
Jesus  claimed  this  latter  knowledge,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
there  is  clear  evidence  that  on  some  subjects,  he  shared 
the  common  intelligence  of  his  land  and  day.  It  is  suf- 
ficient to  mention  the  fact  of  belief  in  the  existence  of 
demons,  that  they  enter  into  men,  and  that  various  phy- 
sical ills  are  due  to  them.7 

The  Logia  has  yet  one  suggestion  in  respect  to  the 
resources  of  Jesus.  He  not  only  claimed  a  unique  knowl- 
edge of  God,  which  he  believed  to  be  man's  highest  good, 
but  he  also  believed  himself  divinely  appointed  to  reveal 

1  Mt.  6:26-34;  Lk.   12:22-31.  6Mt.    11:27;  Lk.    10:22. 

*Mt.  7:711;  Lk.   11:9-13-  *Mt-  12:41-42;  Lk.   11:31-32. 

•ML   10:29-31;  Lk.   12:6-7.  TMt.  12:22-24,  43-45;  Lk.  11:14,  24-26. 

«Mt.    18:12-14;  Lk.    15:4-7. 


17O  THE   HISTORICAL   JESUS 

this  knowledge.  Nothing  in  the  Logia  is  more  impres- 
sive than  the  tone  with  which  Jesus  speaks.  It  is  the 
calm  positive  tone  of  one  who  is  sure  of  his  message. 
"No  one  knoweth  the  Father  save  the  Son;"1  "Follow 
me  and  leave  the  dead  to  bury  their  own  dead  ;"2  "Every- 
one who  shall  confess  me  before  men,  him  will  I  also 
confess  before  my  Father  who  is  in  heaven  ;"3  "Woe  unto 
thee,  Chorazin!  Woe  unto  thee,  Bethsaida!"4  "Behold, 
something  greater  than  Jonah  is  here,"  "Behold,  some- 
thing greater  than  Solomon  is  here  !"5  This  sublime 
assurance  of  Jesus  seems  never  to  have  made  men  feel 
that  he  was  proud.  His  manner  of  life  would  have 
effectually  disposed  of  such  a  thought  had  it  once  arisen. 

Such,  then,  according  to  the  Logia,  was  the  extra- 
ordinary equipment  of  Jesus  for  the  realization  of  his 
ideal  for  his  people.  Of  his  ordinary  equipment,  such  as 
resources  of  physical  strength,  sympathetic  nature,  quick- 
ness and  depth  of  insight  into  the  souls  of  men,  self  con- 
trol and  poise,  we  learn  nothing  from  the  Logia.  Had 
Jesus  possessed  these  gifts,  even  in  the  highest  measure, 
that  fact  alone  would  not  have  gone  far  toward  the 
explanation  of  his  inner  or  his  outer  life.  Had  he  been 
by  nature  without  these  resources  in  any  marked  degree, 
still  his  knowledge  of  God's  fatherly  character  and  the 
conviction  that  he  had  been  called  to  reveal  that  to  men, 
for  their  salvation — these  facts,  with  the  peace  and 
strength  born  of  inner  harmony  with  God,  would  help  us 
to  understand  the  course  and  the  results  of  his  ministry. 

The  method  of  Jesus,  as  reflected  in  the  Logia,  seems 
plainly  to  have  been  determined  by  his  resources.  This 
method  was  teaching:  that  is  its  general  character.  To 
impart  to  others  his  own  knowledge  of  God  as  the  center 
and  secret  of  the  highest  life,  he  must  gain  the  ear  and 
the  heart,  at  least  this  is  evidently  what  he  sought  to  do. 
And  the  particular  details  of  his  didactic  method,  both  in 
word  and  in  deed,  were  natural  deductions  from  the 
consciousness  of  his  resources. 

1  Mt.   11:27;  Lk.   10:22.  *Mt.   11:21;  Lk.  10:13. 

a  Mt.  8:22;  Lk.  9:60.  6Mt.   12:41-42;  Lk.   10:31-32. 

*  Mt.    10:33;  Lk.   12:9. 


RESOURCES  AND  METHOD  OF  JESUS  171 

The  first  appearance  of  Jesus  in  the  Logia  is  as  a 
teacher  in  a  group  of  disciples,1  and  his  last  appearance 
there  is  not  different  from  the  first.2  How  large  this 
group  of  disciples  was  we  cannot  learn  from  the  Logia, 
but  about  the  time  when  they  were  sent  out  to  preach,  they 
were  few  in  number.3  These  disciples  were  to  be  as 
their  master;4  they  were  to  give  freely  as  he  had  freely 
given  to  them.5  Thus  it  appears,  even  in  the  Logia,  that 
the  training  of  his  disciples  by  Jesus  included  some 
actual  work  in  the  field. 

But  while  the  conspicuous  fact  in  the  Logia,  as  regards 
the  method  of  Jesus,  is  that  he  sought  to  realize  his  ideal) 
by  teaching,  there  is  another  fact  of  importance,  viz.  that 
he  healed  disease.  Of  specific  instances  of  healing  this 
earliest  Christian  document  refers  to  only  one,  that  of  a 
dumb  demoniac.6  This  appears  to  be  mentioned  by  Mat- 
thew and  Luke  not  for  its  own  sake,  but  rather  for  the 
sake  of  the  conversation  that  arose  from  it.7  Its  actual 
occurrence  is  thus  attested  in  the  strongest  manner. 

The  Logia  says  nothing  of  the  manner  in  which  Jesus 
cured  this  dumb  person — what  he  said  or  did  to  him:  it 
only  records  the  fact  of  a  cure.  But  Jesus,  in  reply  to 
the  charge  of  his  adversaries  that  he  had  wrought  the 
cure  by  Beelzebub,  that  is,  with  his  aid,  spoke  words  of 
the  utmost  significance  not  only  in  regard  to  this  special 
case  but  in  regard  to  all  similar  cases.  "If  I  by  Beelzebub 
cast  out  demons,  by  whom  do  your  sons  cast  them  out? 
therefore  shall  they  be  your  judges.  But  if  I  by  the 
finger  of  God  cast  out  demons,  then  is  the  kingdom  of 
God  come  upon  you/'8  Thus  Jesus  argued  that  in  accus- 
ing him  of  being  in  league  with  Beelzebub,  they  accused 
also  those  of  their  own  number  who  cast  out  demons. 

•ML   5:1;   Lk.  6:20. 

a  Mt.  24:43;  Lk.    12:42. 

»Mt  9:37;  Lk.  10:2;  Cf.  Mt  13:33;  Lk.  13:20-21. 

4  Mt.   10:24;   Lk.  6:40. 

•Mt.  10:8;  Lk.  10:9. 

•Lk.  11:14;  Mt  9:32-34  (12:22-24).  .... 

7  Matthew,  in  keeping  with  the  tendency  that  is  very  marked  in  the 
material  which  is  peculiar  to  him,  represents  the  demoniac  as  both  dumb 
and  blind.  The  fact  of  this  tendency  in  Matthew,  of  which  we  speak  else- 
where, leads  us  to  regard  Luke's  version  as  the  probably  historical  one. 

•  Lk.  11:19-20;  Mt.  12:27-28. 


172  THE   HISTORICAL  JESUS 

He  therefore  admitted  that  cures  similar  to  his  were 
actually  wrought  by  others.  This  admission  is  of  great 
value.  So  is  also  the  claim  of  the  next  verse  that  it  was 
by  "the  finger  of  God"  (Mt.  has  "Spirit  of  God"),  that  is, 
by  Divine  aid,  not  by  aid  diabolical,  and  not  in  his  own 
strength,  that  he  cast  out  demons.  Thus  Jesus  gave  to 
God  the  glory  of  healing  the  man,  and  said  that  if  this 
was  true,  it  was  proof  that  the  kingdom  of  God  had 
"come  upon  them" — was  at  hand  and  manifest. 

There  is  a  second  specific  incident  in  the  Logia  that 
demands  attention,  viz.  that  of  the  servant  of  a  centurion 
who  was  stationed  in  Capernaum.1  It  has  already  been 
shown2  that  of  the  two  divergent  versions  of  this  incident 
there  is  good  reason  for  the  acceptance  of  that  by  Luke. 
But  Luke  does  not  say  that  Jesus  healed  the  servant ;  he 
does  not  indicate  that  he  sent  any  message  to  the  father. 
He  records  that  when  the  messengers  of  the  centurion 
returned,  they  found  the  servant  whole,  but  he  does  not 
directly  suggest  that  the  recovery  was  due  to  Jesus.  Ac- 
cording to  Matthew's  version,  which  lets  the  centurion 
come  in  person  to  Jesus  instead  of  sending,  Jesus  spoke 
to  the  man  a  word  of  comfort  and  promise.  The  cure  is 
thus  ascribed  to  him,  and  we  have  to  think  of  it  as  we  do 
of  the  cure  of  the  Syrophoenician's  daughter. 

But  while  the  Logia  refers  clearly  to  but  one  specific 
case  of  healing  by  Jesus,  it  has  three  passages  which  may 
imply  similar  activity  on  his  part,  or  on  the  part  of  his 
disciples.  Thus  it  is  perhaps  probable  that  the  "mighty 
works"  done  in  Chorazin,  Bethsaida  and  Capernaum 
were  works  of  healing.3  Again,  there  is  the  commission 
of  the  Twelve.  Luke,  in  the  words  attributed  to  Jesus 
when  the  Twelve  were  sent  out,4  has  no  authorization  to 
heal  disease,  but  in  the  words  attributed  to  Jesus  when 
another  larger  company  were  sent  out,  he  has  the  authori- 
zation to  heal  the  sick.5  This  passage,  by  reason  of  its 
relation  to  Matthew,  is  to  be  ascribed  to  the  Logia.  But 
Matthew8  goes  far  beyond  Luke  in  the  authorization  of 


*Lk.  7:1-3.  6-9;  13:28-29;  Mt.  8:5-13.         *  Lk.  9:1-5. 
*See  Part  I,  p.  42.  »  Lk.   10:9. 

•Mt.  11:21-24;  Lk.  10:12-15.  #Mt.  10:8. 


RESOURCES  AND  METHOD  OF  JESUS  1 73 

the  disciples  to  do  other  things  than  preach.  He  says: 
"Heal  the  sick,  raise  the  dead,  cleanse  the  lepers,  cast  out 
demons."  This  passage  illustrates  the  tendency  of  the 
author  of  the  first  Gospel  to  emphasize  the  supernatural. 
We  are  not  justified  in  ascribing  to  the  Logia  anything 
more  than  an  injunction  to  heal  the  sick,  or,  better,  to 
cast  out  demons. 

We  have  to  consider  next  the  words  of  Jesus  to  the 
messengers  from  John  the  Baptist.  He  bade  them  tell 
John  what  they  had  seen  and  heard.  Then  follow  these 
words,  as  though  summing  up  what  was  to  be  heard  and 
seen.1  "The  blind  receive  their  sight,  and  the  lame  walk, 
the  lepers  are  cleansed,  and  the  deaf  hear,  and  the  dead 
are  raised  up,  and  the  poor  have  good  tidings  preached 
unto  them."  Now  in  one  sense  and  one  only,  so  far  as 
can  be  learned  from  the  Logia,  had  these  words  found 
illustration  in  the  ministry  of  Jesus.  They  described, 
spiritually,  what  he  had  done.  With  the  exception  of 
cleansing  lepers  and  raising  dead  persons  the  language  is 
from  prophetic  passages  about  the  good  time  that  was  in 
store  for  Israel.2  But  if  this  language  is  a  fit  descrip- 
tion of  the  spiritual  work  of  Jesus,  according  to  the 
Logia,  and  if  that  document  has  no  trace  of  events  corre- 
sponding to  this  language  if  literally  understood,9  that 
twofold  fact  is  good  evidence  for  taking  the  words 
spiritually.  But  there  is  also  another  consideration. 
Here  was  a  question  put  to  Jesus  in  regard  to  his  mission. 
How  should  we  expect  that  it  would  be  answered? 
Should  we  expect  Jesus  to  refer  to  such  acts  as  cleansing 
lepers  and  raising  the  dead,  or  to  his  making  the  heavenly 
Father  known  ?  On  the  basis  of  the  Logia  there  can  be 
no  doubt  which  course  we  should  expect  him  to  take. 

There  remains  in  the  Logia  a  single  passage  that  de- 
mands brief  notice  in  this  connection.  Jesus  spoke  of  a 
case  where  an  unclean  spirit  went  out  of  a  man — pre- 
sumably was  cast  out — and  afterward  with  seven  others 
returned.4     Now  while  this  language  is  most  naturally 

*Mt.  11:5;  Lk.  7:22. 

•See  I*.  35:5-6;  61:1-3.  «-.«.. 

•The  cure  of  demons  is  not  specified  in  this  message  to  John. 

*Mu  12:43-45;  Lk.  11:24-26. 


174  THE   HISTORICAL   JESUS 

taken  as  referring  to  some  experience  which  Jesus  himself 
had  had  with  a  demoniac — some  case  of  a  cure  that  was 
succeeded  by  a  state  worse  than  the  first — there  seems  to 
be  no  reason  why  he  might  not  have  used  it  as  a  result  of 
observation,  apart  from  any  experience  of  his  own. 

To  sum  up  the  evidence  of  the  Logic  on  this  point. 
Jesus  cured  a  dumb  demoniac,  and  bade  his  disciples  do 
similar  works.  In  the  cure  of  the  demoniac  he  felt  that 
it  was  God's  "Spirit"  or  "finger"  that  wrought  through 
him.  We  must  suppose  that  he  expected  his  disciples  to 
cast  out  demons  in  reliance  on  the  same  Divine  aid.  He 
admitted  also  that  demons  were  cast  out  by  the  Jewish 
exorcists.  From  this  it  seems  to  follow  that  his  cure  of 
the  demoniac  did  not  necessarily  imply  any  extraordinary 
resource.  If  Jewish  exorcists  cast  out  demons,  how  much 
more  would  demons  flee  before  the  pure,  beneficent  and 
vastly  potent  personality  of  Jesus !  His  resource  of 
unique  knowledge  of  the  heavenly  Father,  and  his  re- 
source of  strength  and  courage  wrapped  up  in  the  con- 
viction of  his  supreme  office  as  revealer  of  the  Father, 
would  not  only  make  him  an  absolute  opponent  of  every- 
thing that  he  regarded  as  demoniacal,  but  would  give 
him — so  at  least  it  would  seem  to  us — a  consciousness  of 
superiority  to  demons,  and  a  sure  confidence  that  they 
must  yield  before  him.  However  this  may  have  been, 
the  source  with  which  we  are  now  concerned  suggests  no 
difference  whatever  between  his  power  to  cast  out  a 
demon  and  his  power  to  do  any  act  of  his  ministry.  As 
to  the  disciples,  he  bade  them  preach  the  kingdom  of  God 
and  cast  out  demons — language  which  seems  to  take  for 
granted  that  if  they  were  prepared  to  do  the  first  thing, 
they  were  prepared  also  to  do  the  second.1 

When  now  we  come  down  from  the  Logia  to  the  com- 
mon tradition  of  the  synoptists  we  find  some  fresh  illus- 
trations of  the  view  that  the  peculiar  resources  of  Jesus 
were  knowledge  of  God  and  conviction  that  he  was  sent 
to  make  God  known.  Thus  the  saying  of  Jesus  that  he 
came  to  call  sinners2  and  that  he  had  authority  to  forgive 

1  According  to  Lk.    10:17  the  disciples  actually  cured  demoniacs. 

2  Mk.  2:17;  Mt.  9:13;  Lk.  5:32. 


RESOURCES  AND  METHOD  OF  JESUS  1?$ 

sin1  were  but  a  natural  and  logical  and  glad  utterance  of 
his  vision  of  God's  fatherly  character.  The  declaration 
that  his  disciples  were  like  "sons  of  the  bride-chamber,,, 
glad  of  heart  because  he  was  with  them,2  and  the  teaching 
that  no  statutes  of  the  past  were  to  be  allowed  to  encroach 
on  this  joy  and  freedom,8  were  also  simple  deductions 
from  that  vision.  These  words  witness  to  the  conscious- 
ness of  such  lofty  resources  as  an  unique  knowledge  of 
God  and  a  Divine  call  to  reveal  that  knowledge  to  men. 
It  was  because  Jesus  was  master  of  these  resources  that 
he  said :  "Whosoever  shall  cause  one  of  these  little  ones 
that  believe  on  me  to  stumble,  it  were  better  for  him  if  a 
great  millstone  were  hanged  about  his  neck,  and  he  were 
cast  into  the  sea,"4  and  again,  that  he  said,  in  view  of  the 
treachery  of  Judas :  "Woe  unto  that  man  through  whom 
the  Son  of  Man  is  betrayed."5  One  might  almost  say 
that  such  words  were  uttered  by  Jesus  because  he  was 
mastered  by  these  sublime  resources,  because  he  felt  that 
God's  revelation  in  him  constituted  the  supreme  call  to 
man's  better  self. 

But  we  have  not  yet  touched  the  most  characteristic 
feature  of  the  common  synoptic  tradition.  There  is  no 
single  term  with  which  this  feature  may  be  historically 
described  unless  it  be  that  which  is  found  once  in  the 
Logic?  and  once  in  the  oldest  Gospel,7  on  the  lips  of  Jesus, 
viz.  "mighty  works"  (  Svm/aei?).  This  term  we  shall  em- 
ploy, though  it  is  obviously  popular  and  indefinite. 

Mighty  works  are  the  most  conspicuous  element  of  the 
common  synoptic  tradition.  There  are  eleven  of  these 
described  in  some  detail,  which  together  constitute  about 
one-sixth  part,  of  the  entire  Gospel  of  Mark.  Besides 
these  there  is  a  general  reference  to  a  number  of  cures 
accomplished  one  evening  in  front  of  Peter's  house  in 
Capernaum.8    Two  of  the  eleven  specific  mighty  works 

•  Mk.  2:10;  Mt.  9:6;  Lk.  5:24. 

a  Mk.  2:19;  Mt.  9:1s;  Lk.   5:34. 

»Mk.  2:23-28;   3:1-6;   Mt.    12:1-14;  Lk.  6:1-11. 

«Mk.  9:42;   Mt.   18:6;  Lk.   17:2. 

•  Mk.   14:21;  Mt.  26:24;Lk.  22:22. 

•  Mt.    11 :2i;  Lk.   10:13. 
'Mk.  9:39. 

•Mk.   1:32-34;  Mt.  8:16-17;  Lk.  4:40-41. 


I76  THE    HISTORICAL   JESUS 

are  cures  of  demoniacs,  two  have  to  do  with  nature  rather 
than  with  man,  one  is  the  resuscitation  of  Jairus'  daugh- 
ter, and  the  remaining  six  have  to  do  with  as  many 
different  physical  conditions — fever,  leprosy,  paralysis, 
palsy,  hemorrhage  and  blindness. 

How  do  these  "mighty  works"  stand  related  to  the 
resources  of  Jesus  with  which  the  Logia  makes  us  ac- 
quainted— resources  that  are  purely  spiritual?  Must  we 
now  add  something  to  those  resources? 

Of  the  restoration  of  two  demoniacs  nothing  need  be 
said  beyond  that  which  was  said  in  the  early  part  of  the 
chapter.  The  words  of  Jesus  show  how  he  regarded  the 
cure  of  demoniacs.  Nor  need  many  words  be  said  today 
of  the  adequacy  of  purely  spiritual  influence  to  the  over- 
coming of  physical  diseases  as  grave  as  paralysis  and 
leprosy.  The  cures  at  Treves  in  1891  included  blindness 
and  paralysis,  lupus,  chronic  inflammation  of  the  spinal 
cord,  cancerous  tumor  and  St.  Vitus'  dance.1  These 
cures  were  accomplished  in  persons  who  looked  in  faith 
upon  the  Holy  Coat.  On  the  evidence  of  trustworthy 
physicians  no  medical  explanation  of  these  particular 
cures  could  be  given.  We  are  then  shut  up  to  the  con- 
clusion that  it  was  by  the  power  of  faith.  But  if  faith 
in  the  Holy  Coat  was  instrumental  in  effecting  these 
cures,  it  is  surely  not  difficult  to  believe  that  faith  in  Jesus 
1  once  effected  similar  cures. 

The  case  of  the  little  daughter  of  Jairus  was  not 
essentially  different  from  these.  We  must  judge  of  it 
by  the  words  of  Jesus.  He  said  that  the  child  was  not 
dead.2  He  was  summoned  to  heal  a  person  who  was 
at  the  point  of  death,3  and  when  he  had  reached  the  house 
and  presumably  had  seen  the  girl,  he  contradicted  the 
report  which  had  gone  forth  that  she  was  dead.  As  in 
the  case  of  Peter's  wife's  mother,  he  took  the  child's 
hand  and  summoned  her  to  rise  up.  It  is  clear  that  in 
Jesus's  thought,  his  act  was  the  resuscitation  of  a  girl 
who  was  only  apparently  dead.  It  was  therefore  an  act 
quite  as  explicable  as  those  which  have  just  been  men- 

1  See  Holtzmnnn,  Lcben  Jcsu,   pp.    149-150. 

*  Mk.  5:39;  Mt.  9:24;   Lk.  8:52.  'On  Mt.  9:18  see  Part  I.  p.  26. 


RESOURCES  AND  METHOD  OF  JESUS  VJ*J 

tioned.  His  calmness,  his  hand-grasp,  his  confident 
summons — these  aroused  the  girl,  and  gave  her  new  life. 
Since  people  had  thought  that  the  child  was  dead,  it  was 
very  easy  and  natural  for  the  belief  soon  to  arise  that 
Jesus  had  raised  a  dead  person  to  life.  It  was  an  age 
when  people  were  eager  to  believe  in  the  arbitrary  and 
freakish  invasion  of  life  by  invisible  beings  clothed  with 
superhuman  powers,  and  the  disciples,  when  they  came  to 
tell  the  story,  naturally  told  it  in  the  way  which  they 
thought  would  honor  Jesus  most.  But  fortunately  they 
preserved  his  own  words,  and  in  the  light  of  these  we 
must  judge  of  the  event. 

But  the  spiritual  resources  o£  Jesus  do  not  appear  to  be 
adequate  to  account  for  the  two  mighty  works  which 
remain  to  be  noticed,  viz.  the  stilling  of  the  storm  on  the 
Lake  of  Galilee1  and  the  feeding  of  a  great  multitude  with 
five  loaves  and  two  fishes.2  Here  we  have  no  longer  to 
do  with  susceptible  human  spirits  and  the  mysterious 
reactions  from  the  spirit  on  the  body,  but  with  inanimate 
matter — the  bread  and  fish,  and  with  forces  of  nature — 
the  winds  and  the  waves.  These  narratives  therefore,  as 
they  stand,  are  at  variance  with  the  older  record  in  which 
we  learn  of  the  resources  of  Jesus  through  his  own  words. 

All  the  preceding  nine  mighty  works  of  the  common 
synoptic  tradition  lead  to  the  question  whether,  in  the 
actual  occurrence  on  the  lake  and  in  the  actual  experience 
with  the  multitude,  Jesus  did  not,  after  all,  have  to  do  not 
with  forces  of  nature  and  with  inanimate  matter,  but  with 
human  minds  and  hearts.  If,  guided  by  the  character 
of  all  the  other  mighty  works,  we  proceed  to  these  two 
exceptional  ones,  which  on  their  face  appear  to  be  ex- 
cluded by  the  high  authority  of  the  Logia,  we  shall  think 
that  the  actual  occurrence  on  the  lake  was  the  restoration 
of  calmness  and  confidence  and  strength  by  the  presence 
and  words  of  Jesus  who  had  been  awakened  from  sleep, 
and  that  the  actual  occurrence  when  the  multitude  were 
satisfied  from  five  loaves  and  two  little  fishes  was  that 
Jesus  gave  himself  to  them  in  such  an  outpouring  of 

*Mk.  4:35-4i;   Mt.  8:18,  23-27;   Lk.   8:22-25. 
aMk.  6:30-44;   Mt.    14:13-21;   Lk.  9:10-17. 

12 


I78  THE    HISTORICAL    JESUS 

grace  and  wisdom  that  they  became  oblivious  of  their 
physical  condition. 

To  this  reconstruction  we  are  led  not  only  by  the  con- 
ception of  himself  which  we  have  from  Jesus  in  the 
Login  and  by  the  character  of  all  the  other  mighty  works 
of  the  common  synoptic  tradition ;  but,  on  the  other  hand, 
by  the  serious  objections  that  present  themselves  to  the 
view  that  Jesus  exercised  omnipotent  power.  These 
objections  need  not  be  presented  at  length.  There  is, 
first,  the  obvious  consideration  that  neither  of  the  two 
situations  called  for  anything  beyond  what  the  spiritual 
resources  of  Jesus  could  supply.  As  to  the  peril  on  the 
lake,  the  calmness  and  confidence  of  a  single  person  have 
more  than  once  brought  deliverance  from  similar  danger ; 
and  as  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  multitude,  if  the  printed 
Gospel  of  Jesus  has  often  beguiled  the  heart  of  man  into 
complete  forgetfulness  of  physical  conditions,  much  more 
may  that  Gospel  as  it  fell  from  the  lips  of  Jesus  himself 
have  wrought  a  like  effect. 

There  is,  second,  the  consideration  that  Jesus,  in  the 
wilderness,  had  rejected  the  popular  Messianic  role  which 
involved  such  astounding  manifestations  as  turning  stones 
into  bread  or  leaping  unharmed  from  lofty  precipices.  To 
suppose  that  he  saved  the  boat  by  silencing  the  winds  and 
laying  the  billows,  or  that  he  multiplied  the  loaves  and 
fishes  to  the  actual  filling  of  five  thousand  men,  with  a 
surplus  of  twelve  baskets,  is  to  make  him  recede  from  the 
high  spiritual  ground  on  which  he  stood  in  the  wilderness. 
Are  we  ready  to  do  that?  Is  it  more  likely  that  he — the 
spiritual  leader  of  the  race — was  inconstant  in  his  spirit- 
ual purpose,  or  that  the  wonder-loving  disciples,  perhaps 
many  years  after  his  death,  exaggerated  mighty  but 
explicable  events  into  unspiritual  displays  of  what  we 
can  hardly  call  by  a  better  name  than  omnipotent  magic? 
For  man  has  nowhere  discovered  the  power  of  God  work- 
ing arbitrarily :  the  deeper  he  has  penetrated  into  nature, 
the  more  perfectly  has  he  become  convinced  that  "order," 
if  not  "heaven's  first  law,"  is  yet  an  inviolable  law  of 
Heaven.  To  command  two  dead  fish  to  become  fifty  or 
five  hundred  is  surely  far  removed  from  God's  way,  who 


RESOURCES  AND  METHOD  OF  JESUS  1 79 

says  to  the  living-,  "Be  fruitful  and  multiply  and  fill  the 
waters  in  the  seas"  (Gen.  1:22).  One  might  credit  a 
wizard  with  such  a  command,  but  the  sane  spiritual 
method  of  Jesus  was  the  very  antipodes  of  wizardry. 

We  conclude  then  that  the  mighty  works  of  Jesus, 
according  to  the  common  tradition  of  the  synoptists,  do 
not  justify  us  in  any  departure  from  that  conception  of 
his  extraordinary  resources  which  we  find  in  his  own 
words  in  the  Logia. 

As  to  the  method  of  Jesus  according  to  the  common 
synoptic  tradition,  we  find  here  two  significant  points  of 
which  the  Logia  has  no  trace.  We  have  seen  in  that 
document  that  the  disciples  of  Jesus,  about  the  time  when 
they  went  out  to  teach,  were  few;  the  synoptic  tradition 
informs  us  definitely  that  he  had  a  circle  of  twelve  who 
alone  were  with  him  on  certain  important  occasions.1 
These  twelve,  according  to  the  oldest  Gospel,2  were  with 
Jesus  a  considerable  time  before  he  sent  them  out  to 
teach ;  these  were  with  him  at  Caesarea  Philippi,3  and  it 
was  they  with  whom  he  observed  the  last  Passover,  and 
to  whom  he  gave  memorial  bread  and  wine.4  Thus  it 
seems  that  Jesus,  though  speaking  to  crowds  and  sowing 
his  good  tidings  broadcast,  gave  himself  in  an  especial 
manner  to  a  little  group  of  men,  probably  the  most  recep- 
tive and  the  most  promising  for  the  work  he  had  in  mind 
of  all  who  gathered  around  him.  This  agrees  thoroughly 
with  the  fact  that  the  extraordinary  resources  of  Jesus 
were  of  a  spiritual  sort.  If  the  kingdom  of  God  was 
merely  to  be  announced  as  an  approaching  event,  it  would 
hardly  have  been  necessary  to  prepare  men  to  make  that 
announcement  by  a  long  course  of  training.  Moreover, 
if  in  the  thought  of  Jesus  the  kingdom  of  God  had  been 
a  worldly  political  state,  it  does  not  appear  probable  that, 
in  preparing  for  its  introduction  into  the  world,  he  would 
have  chosen  only  a  dozen  men  and  these  from  the  walks 
of  common  life.  But  this  accords  perfectly  with  the  fact 
that  he  felt  himself  called  to  reveal  to  men  the  fatherly 

1Mk.  3:14;  Mt.   10:2;  Lk.  6:13. 

a  Mt.  obscures  this  fact,  Luke  follows  Mark. — Mk.  3:14;  6:7. 

•Mk.  8:27;  Mt.  16:13;  Lk.  9:18. 

*  Mk.   14:17;  Mt.  26:20;  Lk.  22:14. 


l80  THE   HISTORICAL   JESUS 

character  of  God,  which  was  not  different  from  setting- 
up  the  rule  of  God  in  their  hearts.  For  the  accomplish- 
ment of  this  purpose  it  was  natural  that  he  chose  men 
from  the  common  walks  of  life,  and  natural  also,  as  it 
seems  to  us  now,  that  he  chose  only  a  small  group,  that  he 
might  come  near  to  them  individually,  and  by  intensive 
effort  might  the  sooner  and  the  more  deeply  reflect  his 
vision  into  their  souls. 

The  second  point  regarding  the  method  of  Jesus  that 
we  meet  first  in  the  common  synoptic  tradition  is  that  he 
communicated  to  his  chosen  inner  group  one  fact  at  least 
which  was  not  declared  to  the  public,  or  even  to  that  part 
of  the  public  which  was  friendly  to  him,  and  this  fact  was 
fundamental  in  character.  To  this  small  circle  alone  he 
imparted,  in  his  own  way,  his  Messianic  claim.1  This 
was  at  Caesarea  Philippi,2  near  the  close  of  the  Galilean 
ministry.  The  one  aspect  of  this  fact  which  we  wish  to 
mention  in  the  present  connection  is  that,  even  with  those 
who  stood  nearest  to  him,  Jesus  came  gradually,  by  a  long 
process  of  teaching,  to  speak  of  the  personal  secret  of  his 
mission.  He  had  spoken  freely  of  the  heavenly  Father, 
and  had  given  ample  ground  for  those  who  had  spiritual 
insight  to  see  in  him  the  Father's  supreme  revealer,  but 
he  had  not  told  his  disciples  that  he  held  himself  to  be  the 
Messiah.  The  reason  for  this  long  reserve  is  probably 
the  wide  difference  between  his  thought  of  Messiahship 
and  theirs.  Until  he  had  established  a  strong  personal 
bond  between  the  disciples  and  himself  he  could  not  ex- 
pect that  they  would  listen  to  his  secret,  seeing  that  his 
course  of  action  was  utterly  unlike  what  was  popularly 
associated  with  the  Messiah.  The  human  heart  was 
ready  to  hear  the  gracious  message  of  the  heavenly 
Father,  but  Jesus  had  to  create  an  audience  to  whom  he 
could  declare  his  conviction  in  regard  to  his  own  relation 
to  that  Father  and  his  kingdom. 

It  remains  now  to  consider  what  bearing  the  peculiar 
material  of  Matthew  and  Luke  has  upon  the  subject  of 
the  Resources  and  the  Method  of  Jesus. 

1  The  affirmation  of  it  on  the  day  of  his  trial  is  of  course  excepted. 
2Mk.  8:27-29;  Mt.   16:13-16;  Lk.  9:18-20. 


RESOURCES  AND  METHOD  OF  JESUS  l8l 

The  words  of  Jesus  to  his  disciples  in  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount — "ye  are  the  salt  of  the  earth,"  "ye  are  the 
light  of  the  world"1 — if  not  from  the  Logia,  yet  present 
no  conception  which  is  at  variance  with  that  document. 
The  lofty  mission  of  his  disciples  implies  of  course  a 
consciousness  that  *his  own  mission  was  lofty,  and  the 
character  of  his  own  mission  is  clearly  suggested  by  the 
ultimate  goal  which  is  held  up  before  them,  viz.  that  the 
Father  may  be  glorified.  This  accords  with  the  view  that 
his  first  extraordinary  resource  was  a  unique  knowledge 
of  God.  It  is  by  virtue  of  that  knowledge — knowledge, 
be  it  remembered,  which,  as  in  the  case  of  Jesus,  deter- 
mines the  whole  life — that  the  disciples  are  the  salt  which 
preserves  the  earth  from  utter  corruption  and  the  light 
of  mankind  into  a  larger  and  better  day.2 

In  Luke's  peculiar  material,  that  which  bears  most 
directly  on  the  resources  of  Jesus  is  the  parable  of  the 
Lost  Son.8  The  situation  out  of  which  this  sprang  was 
important.  Jesus  was  receiving  publicans  and  sinners, 
and  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  were  murmuring.  In 
defense  of  his  conduct  Jesus  told  this  story.  While 
speaking  in  terms  of  an  earthly  father  and  son,  his  argu- 
ment looked  toward  a  higher  relationship,  even  that  of 
God  to  the  sinner.  Thus  we  come  back  again  to  the 
fundamental  fact  that  he  regarded  his  ministry  as  a 
revelation  of  the  character  of  the  heavenly  Father. 

It  appears  then  that  the  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from 
the  Logia  in  regard  to  the  peculiar  resources  of  Jesus 
and  in  regard  to  his  method  is  not  essentially  modified 
either  by  the  common  synoptic  tradition,  or — with  the 
exceptions  noted  above — by  the  material  which  is  found 
in  Matthew  or  Luke.  That  conclusion  may  now  be 
restated :  The  extraordinary  resources  of  Jesus  were 
unique  knowledge  of  God's  character  and  the  conviction 

xMt  5:13.  14. 

2  If  Mt.  11:28-30  be  regarded  as  from  the  lips  of  Jesus,  it  illustrates  the 
view  of  his  extraordinary  resources  which  is  derived  from  the  Logia.  The 
language,  however,  is  peculiarly  Matthaean.  Three  of  the  important  terms 
— £vyo«  vpate,  ikv^pov — are  not  found  in  the  other  Gospels,  and  a  fourth 
—  XPWfc  — 's  not  found  in  the  other  Gospels  in  a  moral  sense,  as  here. 
Not  only  so,  but  the  thought  of  the  passage  has  parallels  in  John  rather 
than  in  the  synoptists  (e.g.,  8:12;   11:25). 

•Lk.   15:8-32. 


l82  THE   HISTORICAL   JESUS 

of  a  unique  mission  as  the  revealer  of  that  character; 
and  his  method,  innerly  accordant  with  these  resources, 
was  that  of  personal  spiritual  influence  by  word  and  by 
example. 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE  PUBLIC  CAREER:  FROM  THE  JORDAN  TO 
CAESAREA  PHILIPPI 

When  the  earlier  and  the  later  strata  of  the  Gospel 
narratives  are  discriminated,  and  their  relative  historical 
value  appraised,  as  is  now  increasingly  done  by  scholars, 
the  general  picture  of  the  public  career  of  Jesus  is  deeply 
affected.  It  is  the  purpose  of  this  chapter  and  the  two 
following  ones  to  consider  that  career  as  a  whole  on  the 
basis  of  such  discrimination  of  the  sources.  No  atten- 
tion will  be  given  to  those  views  of  the  public  ministry 
of  Jesus  which  rest  upon  the  traditional  estimate  of  the 
various  Gospels.  The  aim  is  not  controversial,  but  purely 
constructive.  The  fundamental  Christian  document  is 
the  Logia  and  therefore  our  survey  must  begin  with  this. 
Though  it  is  a  collection  of  the  sayings  of  Jesus,  it  is  not 
wholly  devoid  of  light  on  the  course  of  his  life.  If  we 
had  this  document  and  nothing  more,  we  should  conclude 
that  Jesus,  after  the  experience  in  the  wilderness,  labored 
as  a  teacher  on  the  northwest  of  the  Lake  of  Galilee;1 
that  Capernaum,  Chorazin,  and  Bethsaida  were  the  main 
centers  of  his  activity  ;2  that  at  some  time  he  visited  Jeru- 
salem;8 that  his  ministry  continued  for  some  months  at 
least,  for  it  is  assumed  that  his  "generation"  had  become 
acquainted  with  him,*  and  disciples  were  won  and  trained 
of  whom  the  Master  said:  "He  that  receiveth  you  re- 
ceiveth  me,"5  and  finally,  we  should  conclude  that,  though 
the  opposition  to  him  was  bitter,8  his  success  was  marked.7 

*  Mt  8:5;  Lk.  fit)  Mt  11:21;  Lk.   10:13;  Mt  11:23;  Lk.  10:15. 
9  Matt   11:20-24;  Lk.   10:1  vi6. 

*  Mt  23:37;  Lk.  13:34.  Note,  however,  that  Luke  puts  the  lament  over 
Jerusalem,   at   a   distance    from    the    capital.     See    Lk.    13:34-35. 

*  Mt  11:16-19;  Lk.  16:31-35. 
•Mt   10:40. 

■  Mt  11:19;  Lk.   16:34;  Mt  11:21;  Lk.  10:13;  Mt  12:27;  Lk.   11:19. 
7  Mt  11:25;  Lk.  10:21. 

183 


1 84  THE   HISTORICAL   JESUS 

With  the  exception  of  one  point,  all  this  outline  is  taken 
up  by  the  earliest  narrative.  That  point  is  the  ministry 
of  Jesus  in  Chorazin  and  Bethsaida.  The  language  of  the 
Logia  implies  a  somewhat  prolonged  stay  in  both  these 
places,  yet  the  oldest  narrative  has  no  trace  of  a  visit  to 
either  of  them.  This  fact  suggests  that  between  the 
ministry  of  Jesus  and  the  composition  of  the  oldest  Gos- 
pel some  events  in  his  public  career  had  become  indistinct, 
or  been  forgotten ;  it  also  plainly  suggests  that  the  words 
of  the  Logia  had  peculiar  sacredness,  for  in  this  case  at 
least  they  were  preserved  and  handed  down  even  when 
the  background  needful  for  their  understanding  was 
entirely  lacking. 

Such  is  our  oldest  sketch  of  the  career  of  Jesus,  most 
meagre  yet  most  trustworthy. 

We  pass  on  from  the  Logia  to  the  earliest  Gospel. 
This  also  represents  the  ministry  of  Jesus  as  beginning 
by  the  Lake  of  Galilee,  and  apparently  in  immediate  suc- 
cession after  the  experience  in  the  wilderness.  For 
though  the  synoptists  all  mention  the  imprisonment  of  the 
Baptist  as  preceding  Jesus'  return  to  Galilee,1  they  do  not 
seem  to  have  thought  that  there  was  an  indefinite  interval 
between  the  temptation  and  the  beginning  of  the  Galilean 
work.  They  certainly  knew  of  no  preaching  of  the  Gos- 
pel by  Jesus  until  he  came  into  Galilee  and  knew  of  no 
disciples  won  by  him  before  that.  Their  description  of 
these  things  is  manifestly  the  description  of  what  was 
new,  or  what  they  supposed  was  new.2  If  Peter  was  the 
chief  source  of  Mark's  Gospel,  it  would  seem  very  strange 
that  he  could  have  represented  his  discipleship  to  Jesus 
as  beginning  at  the  lake  near  Capernaum  if,  as  the 
Johannine  narrative  has  it,  he  had  already  received  his 
new  name  from  Jesus,8  and  had  been  with  him  in  Cana 
and  Capernaum,  Jerusalem  and  Samaria,  and  only  after 
that  had  come  into  Galilee  to  labor.4 

The  ministry  of  Jesus  then,  according  to  the  earliest 
Gospel,  began  by  the  Lake  of  Galilee,  more  definitely  it 

1  Mk.   1:14;  Mt.  4:12;  Lk.  3:20. 

*  Mk.   1:14-15;  Mt  4:17;   Lk.  4:14-15. 

»Jn.    1:41-42. 

«Jn.  a:i,   12,   13;  4:1-42.  43-45- 


FROAT  THE  JORDAN  TO  CAESAREA  PHILIPPI  185 

began  in  the  town  of  Capernaum  where  the  two  first 
disciples,  Peter  and  Andrew,  lived,1  presumably  also 
James  and  John  who  were  called  to  discipleship  at  the 
same  time  with  l^eter  and  Andrew  and  in  the  same  place.2 

Whether  Jesus  on  his  return  from  the  Jordan  and  the 
wilderness  went  directly  to  Capernaum,  as  the  narrative 
of  Mark  implies,8  or  first  visited  his  home  in  Nazareth, 
as  the  later  narrative  of  Matthew  reports,4  cannot  be 
positively  determined,  but  fortunately  is  unimportant. 
Whatever  moved  him  thereto,  the  fact  is  that  he  began 
preaching  and  won  his  first  disciples  in  Capernaum.  It  is 
of  course  possible  that  he  had  become  acquainted  with 
one  or  more  of  these  first  disciples  while  at  the  Jordan 
with  the  Baptist,  and  the  narrative  of  John5  may  have 
to  that  extent  a  historical  basis. 

The  winning  of  these  four  fishermen  was  the  great 
event  of  the  first  stay  in  Capernaum.  What  they  had 
seen  in  Jesus  that  induced  them  to  drop  their  nets  and 
follow  him  we  are  not  told.  It  is  probably  safe  to  say 
that  he  had  "fished"  for  them,  but  whether  in  private 
conversation,  or  only  in  the  general  preaching  of  the 
kingdom  of  God,  cannot  be  said.  As  he  promised  to 
make  them  "fishers  of  men,"6  he  must  have  believed  that 
he  possessed  the  secret,  and  perhaps  they  were  the  earliest 
evidence  that  this  belief  was  well  founded. 

But  the  winning  of  four  disciples,  though  the  most 
important  event  of  this  first  stay  in  Capernaum,  was  not 
the  most  conspicuous  and  exciting.  That  distinction  be- 
longs to  the  cures  which  Jesus  performed  in  Peter's 
house,7  at  the  door  of  his  house,8  and  probably,  first  of  all, 
in  the  synagogue.9  The  nature  of  these  and  other  cures 
by  Jesus  was  briefly  discussed  in  the  last  chapter,  and 
need  not  interrupt  our  general  sketch  of  his  life. 

*Mk.   1:29;  Mt.  8:14;  Lk.  4:38. 
aMk.  1:19;  Mt.  4:21;  cf.  Lk.  4:10. 
»Mk.   1:14,   16. 
♦Mt  4:13. 
•Tn.  1:35-42- 

•Mk.  1:17;  Mt.  4:19;  Lk.  4:10. 
TMk.   1:29-31;  Mt.  8:14-15;  Lk.  4:38-39. 
•Mk.  1:32-34;  Mt.  8:16,  17;  Lk.  4:  40-41.  .--'■« 

•  Mk.  1:21-28:  Lk.  4:31-37.  This  cure  is  not  in  Matthew,  hence  not 
strictly  a  part  ot  the  common  tradition. 


l86  THE   HISTORICAL   JESUS 

How  long  this  first  visit  in  Capernaum  was  we  have 
no  means  of  determining.  The  cures  seem  all  to  have 
been  wrought  on  one  day,1  and  on  the  day  following 
Jesus  with  his  four  disciples  left  Capernaum  to  visit 
neighboring  places.2 

This  is  the  next  fixed  point  in  the  career  of  Jesus,8  and 
though  extremely  vague,  it  is  important.  Here  was  a 
tour  of  which  no  single  specific  incident  has  been  pre- 
served unless  the  cure  of  a  leper  belongs  in  it.4  Yet 
according  to  the  earliest  account  it  covered  all  the  province 
of  Galilee5 — a  densely-populated  region  of  some  1600 
square  miles.  If  we  think  of  the  tour  as  consisting  of 
such  visits  as  that  in  Capernaum — and  we  have  absolutely 
no  other  clue  to  its  general  character — we  shall  picture 
Jesus  with  his  four  disciples  passing  rapidly  from  town 
to  town.  That  the  tour  included  all  the  cities  and  vil- 
lages of  Galilee  we  cannot  suppose.  Such  a  journey 
would  have  filled  many  months  with  uninterrupted  travel- 
ling and  labors,  and  can  hardly  have  occurred  without 
leaving  some  further  traces  of  itself  than  a  single  meagre 
verse.  If  Jesus  visited  a  dozen  towns  somewhat  widely 
scattered,  that  would  justify  the  language  of  our  narra- 
tives. However  extensive  the  tour  may  have  been,  the 
preaching  of  Jesus  was  in  the^jsynagogiies — a  circum- 
stance which  shows  that,  in  Galilee  at  least,  if  a  man  had 
a  message  and  was  a  man  of  power,  his  formal  right  to 
preach  was  not  too  closely  scrutinized. 

It  appears  that  this  tour  was  broken  off  in  consequence 
of  one  of  the  "mighty  works"  of  Jesus,  viz.  the  cure  of  a 
leper.  As  after  the  notable  day  in  Capernaum  Jesus 
retired  to  a  solitary  place,  so  now,  leaving  his  work,  he 
does  the  same.6  That  he  had  apprehended  such  a  con- 
sequence seems  to  follow  from  the  strict  injunction  to 

1  Mk.   1:23,  29,  32,  35. 

2  According  to  Mk.  1 138  Jesus  said  that  he  had  come  forth  (i.e.,  from 
Capernaum)  that  he  might  preach  in  neighboring  towns,  but  according  to 
Lk.  4:43  he  struck  a  higher  note  and  said  that  he  had  been  "sent"  (i.e., 
from  God)  to  preach  the  kingdom  in  other  cities.  In  both  cases  he  inti- 
mated clearly  that  his  departure  from  Capernaum  was  due  to  a  definite 
purpose,  and  that  he  was  not  subject  to  recall  at  the  wish  of  the  crowd. 

8  Mk.  1:39;  Mt  4:23;  Lk.  4:44. 

*Mk.  1:40;  Mt.  8:2;  Lk.  5:12. 

•Mk.   1:39.  «Mk.  1:4s;  Lk.  5:15-16. 


FROM  THE  JORDAN  TO  CAESAREA  PHILIPPI  187 

the  man  to  say  nothing  of  the  event.  The  incident  shows 
clearly  that  one  might  be  healed  by  his  faith  in  Jesus  and 
yet  be  disloyal  to  him.  It  must  have  brought  home  to 
the  Master  the  fact  that  his  cures  might  seriously  inter- 
fere with  the  work  which  he  had  most  at  heart. 

What  drew  Jesus  back  to  Capernaum  after  this  indef- 
inite tour  we  can  only  conjecture.  His  disciples  may 
have  needed  to  visit  their  homes,  or  the  outlook  in  Caper- 
naum may  have  been  more  promising  than  elsewhere. 
The  somewhat  extended  sojourn  in  the  lake-city  which 
now  began  proved  to  be  of  very  great  importance  for  the 
new  religious  movement.  From  a  reference  to  ripening 
grain1  we  may  infer  that  Jesus  came  back  to  the  lake 
about  the  first  of  June.  Several  circumstances  suggest, 
but  only  suggest,  that  his  second  visit  continued  for  some 
weeks  at  least.  Such  are  the  references  to  apparently 
two  Sabbaths;2  the  fact  that  his  mother  and  brothers, 
having  heard  in  Nazareth  what  was  being  done,  came 
down  to  Capernaum  hoping  to  take  Jesus  home  with 
them;8  and  especially  the  fact  that  people  from  distant 
parts  of  the  land  came  to  Capernaum  to  see  him  and  to 
be  healed. 

It  seems  altogether  probable  that  Jesus  during  this 
period  of  labor  in  Capernaum  lodged  with  Peter  and 
Andrew,  for  Mark's  Gospel,  which  was  based  to  some 
extent  on  Peter's  teaching,  plainly  implies  this  relation- 
ship.5 If  this  view  be  correct,  then  it  localizes  several 
important  incidents.  It  must  have  been  the  roof  of 
Peter's  house  that  was  partly  uncovered  to  allow  the 
paralytic's  cot  to  be  lowered  into  the  room  where  Jesus 
was  sitting;6  it  was  in  Peter's  house  where  Jesus  sat 
surrounded  by  receptive  hearers  when  his  mother  and 
brothers  wished  him  to  come  out  to  them;7  and  it  may 
have  been  there  also  that  his  disciples  asked  him  the 
meaning  of  the  parable  of  the  Sower  and  other  parables,8 

*Mk.  2:23;  Mt.  12:1;  Lk.  6:1. 

1  Mk.  2:23;  3:2;  Mt.    12:1,   10;  Lk.  6.1,  6. 

7*Mlc  3:21,  31-35;  Mt.   12:46-5°;  Lk«  8:19-21. 

«Mk.  3:8;  Mt.  4:25;  Lk.  6:17. 

•Mk.  1:29,  32;  2:1. 

•Mk.  2:4;  Lk.  5:19- 

^TMk.  3:31;  Mt.  12:46;  Lk.  8:19,  20.  «Mk.  4:10. 


l88  THE   HISTORICAL   JESUS 

in  which  case  the  saying  about  the  lamp  and  stand,  the 
bushel  and  the  bed,  may  have  been  uttered  with  these 
utensils  and  furniture  in  sight  and  at  hand. 

This  second  visit  in  Capernaum  is  noteworthy  for  the 
rapid  development  of  opposition  to  Jesus.  His  assump- 
tion of  authority  to  forgive  sin  made  certain  scribes  who 
were  present  evil  affected  toward  him,  but  their  hostile 
feeling  seems  not  to  have  expressed  itself  in  words  at 
once;1  and  his  call  of  Levi  the  taxgatherer  to  disciple- 
ship  led  the  scribes  to  speak  slurringly  of  him  as  one  who 
ate  and  drank  with  publicans  and  sinners — a  grievous 
offense  against  their  ceremonial  code.2  The  act  of  his 
disciples  in  plucking  heads  of  grain  on  the  Sabbath  was 
brought  against  him  as  an  infraction  of  the  Sabbath  law  ;3 
his  cure  of  a  withered  hand  on  the  Sabbath  filled  his 
critics  with  rage  ;4  and  his  power  to  cast  out  demons  was 
declared  to  come  from  Beelzebub  the  prince  of  demons.5 
The  freedom  of  his  disciples  in  the  matter  of  fasting  was 
also  looked  upon  as  blameworthy  not  only  by  Pharisees 
but  also  by  the  disciples  of  the  Baptist.6  Thus  Jesus 
was  now  criticized  on  all  sides,  but  only  by  the  religious 
authorities.  Disregard  of  the  traditional  law  was  the 
chief  source  of  opposition  and  engendered  the  intense 
bitterness  that  malignantly  ascribed  his  good  works  to 
Beelzebub. 

The  manner  in  which  Jesus  met  these  attacks  shows 
that,  though  he  came  from  a  humble  calling  in  a  humble 
community,  he  had  thought  deeply  on  moral  and  religious 
questions  and  had  reached  perfectly  definite  conclusions, 
which  did  not  accord  with  the  orthodox  views  of  the 
synagogue.  Thus  in  defense  of  his  authority  to  forgive 
sin  he  healed  the  paralytic ;  in  reply  to  the  contemptuous 
remark  about  associating  with  publicans  and  sinners  he 
said  it  was  the  sick  who  needed  a  physician.  The  free- 
dom of  his  disciples  in  the  matter  of  fasting  he  defended 

1  That  they  thought  him  guilty  of  "blasphemy"  may  have  been  inferred 
from  their  looks  ana  gestures. 

3Mk.  2:16;   Mt.  9:1 »;   Lk.   5:30. 
7»Mlc.  2:24;   Mt.    12:2;  Lk.  6:2. 
/«Mk.  3:6;  Mt.   12:14;  Lk.  6:11. 
•  Mk.   3:22;   ML    12:24;   Lk.   11:15. 
.•Mk.  2:18;  Mt.  9:14;  Lk.   5:33. 


FROM,  THE  JORDAN  TO  CAESAREA  PHILIPPI  189 

on  the  ground  that  the  present  was  for  them  a  time  of 
joy;  the  charge  that  his  disciples  had  done  an  unlawful 
thing  in  plucking  grain  on  the  Sabbath  he  easily  refuted 
out  of  the  Scriptures,  adding  the  enfranchising  word 
that  the  Son  of  Man  is  lord  of  the  Sabbath  ;x  the  attempt 
to  get  a  valid  accusation  against  him  as  a  violator  of  the 
Sabbath  by  his  cure  of  disease  he  met  with  the  principle 
that  it  is  lawful  to  do  good  on  the  Sabbath — the  asser- 
tion of  sound  moral  instinct  as  against  the  refinements 
of  ceremonial  law;  and  the  charge  of  partnership  with 
Beelzebub  he  demolished  with  simple  but  unanswerable 
logic. 

A  second  characteristic  feature  of  this  visit  in  Caper- 
naum was  that,  in  spite  of  the  unconcealed  opposition  of 
the  religious  authorities,  the  new  movement  was  greatly 
strengthened.  The  winning  of  Levi  and  the  acceptance 
of  his  hospitality  by  Jesus  seems  to  have  been  accom- 
panied by  a  general  turning  to  him  of  publicans  and 
sinners.2  The  number  of  genuine  disciples  became  so 
large  that  Jesus  was  able  to  choose  twelve  men  with  a 
view  to  sending  them  forth  as  co-workers.3  The  first 
four  of  the  twelve  were  the  men  who  had  been  with 
Jesus  on  his  early  tour  from  Capernaum,  and  Matthew, 
according  to  the  author  of  the  first  Gospel,4  was"  identical 
with  the  publican  Levi,  of  whose  call  the  oldest  Gospel 
gives  an  account.  Of  the  remaining  seven  men  the 
synoptic  tradition  contains  no  information  beyond  what 
is  found  in  the  list  of  names.  It  is  significant  that  one 
of  them  (Simon)  was  known  as  the  "Zealot,"  that  is,  an 
adherent  of  Judas  of  Gamala.  That  a  man  should  have 
passed  from  the  party  Which  advocated  radical  revolution- 
ary measures  to  the  circle  of  the  disciples  of  Jesus  whose 
teaching  was  purely  spiritual  is  a  testimony  not  only  to 
his  personal  power  but  also  to  his  confidence  that  the 
influence  of  his  message  would  blend  into  one  the  most 
diverse  elements.  A  tax-gatherer  and  a  Zealot  were 
as  far  apart  as  possible  in  their  political  views,  one 
a  servant  and  the  other  a  sworn  enemy  of  the  Roman 

1  Mk.  2:28;  Mt.  12:8;  Lk.  6:5.  «Mk.  3:14;  Mt  10:2;  Lk.  6:13. 

aMk.  2:15;  Mt  9:10;  Lk.  5:29.  *Mt  9:9. 


190  THE  HISTORICAL  JESUS 

government.  Of  the  other  men — Philip  and  Barthol- 
omew, Thomas  and  James  of  Alphaeus,  Thaddeus  and 
Judas  Iscariot — the  synoptic  tradition  gives  no  informa- 
tion. The  natural  presumption  is  that,  as  Jesus  had 
worked  only  in  Galilee,  they  were  Galileans,  but  that 
cannot  be  certainly  affirmed.  We  know  nothing  of  their 
respective  vocations.  The  lack  of  agreement  between 
Luke's  list  of  names  and  that  of  the  oldest  Gospel1  is 
without  explanation.  The  fact  that  Peter  was  one  of  the 
sources  of  Mark's  Gospel,  as  well  as  the  somewhat  more 
archaic  form  of  Mark's  list,2  speaks  for  the  historical 
correctness  of  the  name  "Thaddeus"  rather  than  Luke's 
designation  "Judas  son  of  James." 

A  third  notable  feature  of  this  second  stay  in  Caper- 
naum is  the  fact  that  people  were  drawn  thither  from 
distant  parts  of  the  land.  This  is  hardly  to  be  counted 
as  a  mark  of  the  true  growth  of  the  new  movement. 
Jesus,  on  one  occasion,  was  forced  to  betake  himself  to  a 
boat  in  order  to  get  an  opportunity  to  speak  to  the  peo- 
ple, so  great  was  the  rush  for  healing,3  and  it  is  not 
improbable  that  his  crossing  to  the  east  side  of  the  lake4 
was  to  escape  a  multitude  whose  chief  motive  in  coming 
to  him  was  either  curiosity  to  witness  some  of  his  works 
or  the  desire  for  healing.  Superstition  in  regard  to  him 
as  a  healer  was  so  gross  that  people  located  a  magical 
power  in  his  very  garments,5  and  thus  thought  of  him  as 
a  sort  of  dynamo  of  curative  energies  quite  apart  from 
his  will.6  It  is  obvious  that  where  people  regarded  Jesus 
in  this  light,  their  thronging  him  was  not  promotive  of 
his  spiritual  ends.  The  fact  that  many  flocked  to  Caper- 
naum from  afar,  to  be  healed,  is  clear  evidence  that  the 
physicians  of  the  time  were  inefficient,  and  it  may  be  that 
a  knowledge  of  this  truth  inclined  the  merciful  heart  of 
Jesus  the  more  strongly  to  alleviate  physical  suffering 

1  Mk.  3:18;  Lk.  6:16. 

a  The  name  "Boanerges,"  which  appears  only  in  Mark,  points  to  his 
priority.  We  can  understand  why,  in  later  times,  this  was  dropped,  because 
of  the  criticism  it  involved,  more  readily  than  we  can  regard  it  as  an 
invention    of    Mark. 

»Mk.   3:9. 

«Mk.  4:35;  Mt.  8:18;  Lk.  8:22. 

6  Mk.  5:28;  Mt.  9:21;  Lk.  8:44. 

•Even  the  evangelists  shared  this  view.     See   Mk.   5:30;   Lk.  8:45-46. 


FROM  THE  JORDAN  TO  CAESAREA  PHILIPPI  191 

whenever  he  could,  though  he  soon  became  aware  that 
healing  interfered  with  preaching.  The  perception  of 
this  fact  accounts  for  the  strictness  with  which  he 
enjoined  silence  on  those  who  had  seen  the  resuscitation 
of  the  little  daughter  of  Jairus.1  Whether  this  injunction 
was  successful  we  do  not  know.  It  is  suggestive,  how- 
ever, that  this  act  in  the  house  of  Jairus  closed  the  second 
period  of  ministry  in  Capernaum,  so  far  as  our  sources 
inform  us. 

We  have  now  reached  a  chapter  in  the  public  life  of 
Jesus  which  is  in  some  respects  more  obscure  than  what 
has  gone  before.  In  the  interval  between  his  departure 
from  Capernaum  and  his  journey  to  Caesarea  Philippi2 
Luke  follows  the  earliest  Gospel  only  in  the  mission  of 
the  Twelve,  their  return  to  Jesus,  and  the  story  of  the 
feeding  of  the  great  multitude.3  The  other  material 
which  Mark  and  Matthew  put  in  this  interval  is  wanting 
in  Luke.4 

If  we  follow  the  earliest  Gospel,  when  Jesus  left  Caper- 
naum he  made  a  tour  of  some  extent  with  the  Twelve, 
and  on  this  tour  visited  his  native  town.6  We  have  no 
clue  to  the  extent  or  the  duration  of  this  tour,6  no  inci- 
dent from  it  except  the  visit  in  Nazareth.  His  rejection 
in  his  native  town,  by  people  who  had  long  known  Turn  as 
a  private  citizen,  must  have  had  its  own  peculiar  bitterness 
for  him.  Further,  this  incident  throws  the  first  shadow 
on  the  record  of  Jesus'  career  as  a  doer  of  mighty  works. 
Here  the  unbelieving  attitude  of  people  toward  him  made 
this  kind  of  ministry  in  the  main  impossible. 

The  next  luminous  point  in  the  history  of  Jesus  is  the 
sending  of  the  twelve  apostles.  They  had  been  with  him 
now  for  some  weeks — four  of  them  longer  than  the  rest 


/ 


»MIc  5:43;  Lk.  8:56. 

•Mk.  8:27;  Mt.   16:13;  Lk.  9:18. 


•Lk.  9:1-5.   *o»   H-I7- 

4  His  account  of  a  visit  to  Nazareth  is  doubtless  parallel  to  Mk.  6:1-6, 
though  placed  by  him  before  the  first  visit  in  Capernaum;  and  he  has  a 
reminiscence  of  Mk.  8:11-12  but  in  a  different  setting  (Lk.   11:16,  29). 

•Mk.   6:1,  6,   7. 

•Mark's  «AcA«  (6:6)  may  suggest  that  he  thought  of  the  region  lying 
about  Nazareth.  L  Matthew's  comprehensive  statement,  "all  the  cities  and 
the  villages"  (9:35).  seems  hardly  to  accord  with  the  subsequent  mission  of 
the  Twelve. 


192  THE   HISTORICAL   JESUS 

— and  he  must  have  come  to  know  them  well.  It  appears 
that  he  sent  them  to  say  and  to  do  what  they  had  heard 
and  seen  him  do :  that  they  were  to  be  continuators  of  the 
movement  which  he  had  inaugurated.  The  directions 
given  them  suggest  that  they  were  not  expected  to  go 
very  far  or  be  gone  a  great  while,1  and  that  they  were  not 
to  anticipate  uniformly  good  treatment.2  It  does  not 
appear  from  what  place  they  went  forth,  or  to  what  place 
they  returned,  or  how  long  the  tour  lasted.  Since  Caper- 
naum was  certainly  the  home  of  some  of  them  and  had 
been  the  center  of  Jesus'  work  thus  far,  it  is  not  unlikely 
that  they  went  forth  with  the  understanding  that  they 
were  to  return  thither  after  their  tour  had  been  com- 
pleted.3 No  details  of  the  work  and  experience  of  the 
Twelve  have  been  preserved.  It  is,  however,  stated  in  a 
general  way  that  they  preached  and  healed.4  Where 
Jesus  himself  was  during  this  absence  of  the  apostles  can 
only  be  conjectured. 

Soon  after  the  return  of  the  Twelve — at  Capernaum, 
if  this  town  was  indeed  their  rendezvous — Jesus  sum- 
moned them  to  go  apart  with  him  to  some  quiet  spot,  for 
a  little  rest.6  This  quiet  spot,  according  to  the  following 
account,  was  somewhere  on  the  shore  of  the  lake,8  and, 
to  judge  from  Mark  6:45,  on  the  west  side  of  the  lake.7 
From  this  spot,  after  the  notable  experience  with  a  great 
multitude,  Jesus  sent  his  disciples  away  by  boat  to 
"Bethsaida."8  When,  however,  they  came  to  land,  they 
were  not  at  Bethsaida,  but  on  the  coast  of  Gennesaret.9 
The  wind  had  beaten  them  back  from  the  point  which 
they  set  out  to  make. 

What  Jesus  had  sought  to  avoid  by  going"  from  Caper- 
naum to  a  solitary  spot  somewhere  on  the  shore  of  the 
lake  now  awaited  him  on  the  following  day  in  the  thickly 


1  Mk.  6:8-9;  Mt.  10:9-10;  Lk.  9:3. 

*Mk.  6:11;  Mt.   10:14;  Lk.  9:5. 

8  Mk.    1 130,  32  favors  this  view. 
/*Mk.  6:12-13;   Lk.  9:6. 

'  B  Mk.  6:31.     Mt.   14:13  gives  the  Baptist's  death  as  the  occasion  of  the 
retirement  of  Jesus  at  this  time. 

•Mk.  6:33. 

7  Luke's    statement    that    they    withdrew    to    "a    city    called    Bethsaida" 
(9:10)   is  not  in  harmony  with  Mark. 

•Mk.  6:45.  'Mk.  6:53;   Mt.    14:34- 


A: 


FROMi  THE  JORDAN  TO  CAESAREA  PHILIPPI  I93 

populated  Gennesaret  plain.  He  was  at  once  recognized 
as  the  great  healer,  and  whichever  way  he  turned  he  was 
beset  by  those  who  craved  healing.1  It  is  notable  that 
he  is  not  said  to  have  healed  anyone,2  although  he  was 
thus  thronged — an  indication  of  a  change  of  mind.  Of 
this  we  shall  have  confirmation  as  we  follow  down  the 
course  of  events. 

It  was  about  this  time  that  Jesus  was  confronted  with 
a  new  accusation  from  the  scribes  and  Pharisees,  viz. 
that  he  disregarded  ceremonial  cleansing.3  And  this 
charge  was  doubtless  quite  true.  Jesus  in  his  reply  to 
the  criticism  declared  that  the  tradition  of  the  '"elders — 
ceremonial  cleansing  belonged  to  that  tradition — was 
radically  opposed  to  the  commandment  of  God.  He 
cited  a  case  in  point.  A  man  is  bound  by  the  Law  to 
honor  father  and  mother,  but  according  to  the  elders' 
tradition,  what  was  rightfully  due  to  parents  might  be 
withheld  by  merely  pronouncing  over  it  the  word  "kor- 
ban"  (=a  gift,  i.e.,  to  the  Lord).  Thus  God's  word  was 
made  of  no  effect. 

So  much  for  the  traditional  law  in  general.  As  to  the 
particular  rite  of  ceremonial  hand-washing,  which  was 
neglected  by  the  disciples  of  Jesus,  he  said,  in  substance, 
that  it  was  an  insignificant  matter.  A  man  is  defiled  by 
that  which  comes  from  within  him,  and  not  by  what  he 
eats,  still  less  therefore  by  touching  what  he  eats  with 
hands  that  are  not  ceremonially  clean.  Jesus  thus  virtu- 
ally denied  that  the  rite  for  which  his  critics  stood  had  a 
valid  basis.  This  was  not  a  formal  attack  on  the 
Levitical  law,  but  it  was  a  relegation  of  ceremonialism  to 
the  class  of  things  that  are  relatively  unimportant.*  Any 
man  who  took  this  position  in  the  time  of  Jesus  was 
doomed.  He  might  escape  for  a  season,  but  his  fate  was 
sealed. 

The  presence  of  hostile  scribes  and  Pharisees  from 
Jerusalem,8  together  with  the  fact  that  people  thronged 

1  Mk.  6:55-56;  Mt  14:35-36. 

3  People  are  said  to   nave   touched  him  with  good  results,  but  he  could 
hardly  have  prevented  this  when  in  the  midst  of  crowds. 
»  M k.   7:1-23;   Mt.   15:1-30. 
«Cf.  Mt  23:23-26.  5Mk.  7:1;  Mt.  15:1. 

13 


194  THE   HISTORICAL   JESUS 

him  for  physical  healing,  probably  led  Jesus  to  take  a 
trip  to  the  north,  beyond  the  borders  of  Galilee.  In  the 
region  of  Tyre  and  Sidon  he  was  in  the  Roman  province 
of  Syria,  in  a  land  predominantly  Gentile,1  but  from  there 
around  to  the  east  of  the  lake,  by  a  way  through  the 
midst  of  Decapolis,2  he  may  not  have  left  the  territory  of 
Philip.  Here  again  the  record  is  exceedingly  meagre. 
There  is  no  clue  to  the  time  spent  on  this  trip  except  the 
mere  fact  of  the  distance  from  place  to  place,  nor  is 
there  any  suggestion  as  to  how  Jesus  and  the  Twelve 
were  occupied.  That  he  was  teaching  them  and  training 
them  to  promote  the  new  movement  may  safely  be 
assumed,  but  with  the  exception  of  a  single  incident  the 
entire  trip  is  a  perfect  blank.  That  incident — the  meeting 
with  a  Gentile  woman  who  craved  healing  for  her 
demonized  daughter3 — is  important  in  various  respects. 
It  shows  that  Jesus  was  unwilling  to  have  here  a  repeti- 
tion of  the  scenes  he  had  recently  witnessed  by  the  lake. 
He  did  at  length  grant  the  woman's  request,  but  only 
when  moved  thereto  by  her  extraordinary  trust.  It  seems 
also  to  show  that  Jesus  did  not  look  upon  Gentiles  as 
having,  at  present,  any  claim  upon  his  ministry.  First, 
the  children  at  the  table — this  was  his  thought ;  then,  the 
little  pet  dogs  under  the  table.4  If  this  discrimination 
between  Jews  and  Gentiles  by  Jesus  shocks  us,  it  is  to  be 
noticed  that  it  is  not  so  harsh  as  it  at  first  appears.  If  the 
Gentiles  are  to  have  the  blessings  of  the  Gospel,  though 
not  at  once,  then  they  must  be  regarded  as  capable  of 
receiving  those  blessings ;  in  other  words,  they  are  after 
all  on  the  same  plane  with  the  Jews.  Thus  the  word 
"first"  takes  away  much  of  the  sting  of  the  term  "little 
dogs."  It  may  be  inferred  from  the  words  of  Jesus  to 
this  woman  that  he  did  not  regard  his  work  for  the 
"children"  as  finished,  although  when  he  left  Galilee  the 
prospect  of  continuing  his  labor  there  was  not  hopeful. 
What  led  Jesus  to  return  by  way  of  the  Decapolis  and 

/'Mk.  7:24;  Mt.   15:21. 
/  2Mk.  7:31. 

3  Mk.   7:25-30;   Mt.    15:22-28. 

*  Mk.  7:27. — Matthew  omits  this  idea  of  order,  and  therefore  is  decidedly 
further  removed  from  the  sympathy  and  gentleness  of  Jesus. 


FROM!  THE  JORDAN  TO  CAESAREA  PHILIPPI  I95 

to  make  a  stop  on  the  east  side  of  the  lake  can  only  be 
conjectured.  Possibly  it  was  that  he  might  learn  the  state 
of  feeling  in  Capernaum  and  the  vicinity  while  being 
himself  somewhat  hidden  and  beyond  easy  reach.  Mark's 
account  of  a  cure  which  he  wrought  when  he  reached  the 
east  shore  is  highly  suggestive.1  Jesus  took  the  deaf  man 
apart  from  the  crowd ;  he  made  use  of  physical  agents  in 
the  cure,  putting  his  fingers  into  the  man's  ears  for  the 
deafness  and  putting  spittle  on  his  tongue  for  the  dumb- 
ness— a  course  of  procedure  not  said  to  have  been 
adopted  in  any  instance  thus  far;  he  uttered  an  inartic- 
ulate prayer  before  speaking  the  word  of  healing — a 
feature  hitherto  wanting  in  the  accounts  of  healing, 
though  quite  germane  to  the  principle  found  in  the  Logia 
in  connection  with  the  charge  that  he  wrought  his  cures 
with  the  aid  of  Beelzebub;  and  finally,  Jesus  enjoined 
upon  those  who  were  cognizant  of  the  healing  to  say  noth- 
ing about  it — an  injunction  which  is  said  to  have  been 
disregarded. 

It  is  clear  from  this  account  that  Jesus  was  becoming 
deeply  averse  to  the  work  of  public  healing.  This  change 
of  attitude,  to  judge  from  the  narrative  of  the  last  days 
in  Galilee,  was  due  to  the  fact  that  healing  seriously  inter- 
fered with  his  preaching.2 

The  movements  of  Jesus  for  a  time  after  this  incident 
on  the  east  side  of  the  lake  are  wholly  uncertain.3  The 
fact  that  he  was  at  once  importuned  to  heal  disease,  even 
in  this  region  where  he  was  comparatively  unknown,  was 
a  plain  indication  of  what  awaited  him  should  he  cross 
to  the  scene  of  his  longest  ministry  on  the  west  shore. 
Apparently  he  resolved  to  continue  with  his  disciples  in 
as  quiet  a  mode  of  life  as  possible.  Mark  speaks  of  a 
trip  to  the  parts  of  Dalmanutha,4  Matthew  to  the  borders 
of  Magadan,5  but  where  these  towns  were  located,  or  this 

1  Mk.  7:32-35.— Matthew's  representation  that  Jesus  took  up  the  work  of 
healing;  on  a  large  scale  (15:29-30)  is  excluded  by  the  character  of  Mark's 
narrative  and  by  the  general  situation. 

a  The  modern  parallel  to  the  cures  by  Jesus  is  not  the  medical  mission 
but  the  faith-cults. 

•The  incident  of  Mk.  8:1-9,  Mt.  15:32-39  is  probably  a  duplicate  of  the 
feeding  of  five  thousand. 

«Mk.  8:10. 

»Mt.   15:39. 


196  THE    HISTORICAL   JESUS 

town,  for  both  names  may  refer  to  the  same  place,  it  is 
not  possible  to  say.  It  is  significant  that  just  as  Jesus  is 
not  said  to  have  entered  Tyre  or  Sidon,  so  here  he  is  not 
said  to  have  entered  Dalmanutha.  He  was  obviously 
seeking  to  remain  unrecognized.  This,  however,  was  not 
everywhere  possible.  His  presence  near  Dalmanutha  be- 
came known  and  Pharisees  came  forth — perhaps  from 
this  town1 — and  asked  of  him  a  divine  sign.2  What  the 
sign  was  to  be  for,  what  it  was  to  prove,  the  reader  is  left 
to  judge  from  the  general  situation.  This  situation  sug- 
gests that  they  wanted  credentials,  supernatural  and 
unmistakable  credentials,  for  his  appearance  as  a  teacher 
and  a  doer  of  mighty  works  in  Israel.  Jesus  recognized 
that  in  making  this  request  these  Pharisees  were  typical 
representatives  of  their  entire  generation.  To  him,  how- 
ever, their  spirit  was  alien :  he  had  rejected  a  course  that 
relied  on  "signs"  as  a  temptation  of  Satan,3  and  therefore 
on  this  occasion  also  his  answer  was  a  negative. 

This  chance  encounter  with  the  Pharisees  occasioned 
a  remark  by  Jesus  to  the  Twelve,  as  they  were  with- 
drawing by  boat  toward  some  haven  unknown  to  us, 
which  throws  some  light  on  the  extreme  seriousness  of 
the  situation.  "Take  heed,"  he  said,  "and  beware  of  the 
leaven  of  the  Pharisees."4  The  disciples  thought,  at  the 
time,  that  he  was  warning  them  against  buying  bread  of 
the  Pharisees,6  and  Luke  interpreted  the  "leaven"  as  an 
allusion  to  Pharisaic  hypocrisy.0  We  can  hardly  suppose, 
however,  that  the  Twelve  needed  to  be  solemnly  warned 
against  hypocrisy  at  this  time  when  they  were  bravely 
sharing  the  fortunes  of  Jesus  as  semi-fugitives  from  their 
own  land.  But  while  there  is  no  indication  that  they  were 
hypocrites,  they  certainly  were  sharers  of  the  popular 
Messianic  expectations,  and  the  positive  refusal  of  Jesus 
to  satisfy  the  Pharisees'  desire  for  a  divine  sign  may  well 
have  started  some  questioning  in  their  hearts.     The  fact 


1  The    word    i(fiXBov    may    refer    to    a   coming    forth    from   Jerusalem,    or 
from  the  land  on  the  west  of  the  Jordan.     The  reference  is  uncertain. 
2Mk.  8:11;  Mt.   16:1. 
•  Mt.    4:3-";    Lk.    4:3-13. 
v-«Mk.  8:15;   Mt.   16:6;  Lk.   ia:i. 
X  »Mk.  8:16;  Mt.   16:7. 
f       «Lk.   12:1. 


FROM  THE  JORDAN  TO  CAESAREA  PHILIPPI  1 97 

that  Jesus  warned  them  is  evidence  that  he  regarded 
them,  or  some  of  them  at  least,  as  liable  to  be  swept  away 
from  their  attachment  to  him  by  reason  of  his  attitude 
toward  the  popular  views. 

Thus  one  thing  after  another  was  arising  to  darken  the 
way  before  Jesus — the  complete  interruption  of  his  teach- 
ing by  the  irresistible  rush  to  get  healed,  the  rejection  in 
Nazareth,  the  increasing  hostility  of  the  religious  leaders, 
and  finally  a  doubt  regarding  the  steadfastness  of  the 
chosen  band. 

From  the  unknown  "parts  of  Dalmanutha"  the  little 
company  went  north  and  came  to  Bethsaida,  for  the  story 
of  Mark  8:22-26,  though  not  adopted  by  the  later  Gos- 
pels, perfectly  suits  the  place  where  he  puts  it,  and  accords 
with  the  present  attitude  of  Jesus  toward  the  subject  of 
healing.  On  reaching  Bethsaida  he  was  recognized,  and 
a  blind  man  was  brought  to  him  for  healing.  As  in  the 
case  of  the  deaf  man  on  the  east  side  of  the  lake  farther 
south,  so  Jesus  now  takes  the  blind  man  apart,  leading 
him  out  of  the  village.1  He  makes  use  of  physical  means 
in  the  process  of  healing,  putting  spittle  on  the  eyes — a 
well  known  remedy  for  certain  kinds  of  ophthalmia.2  The 
man  is  restored,  but  only  by  degrees,  for  at  first,  men 
appear  to  him  like  walking  trees,  and  only  after  a  second 
laying  on  of  Jesus'  hands  does  he  see  clearly.3  Here  we 
observe  an  unwillingness  to  work  a  public  cure,  and, 
what  is  equally  significant,  the_ciire_is_g3;aiiuai*.  To  keep 
the  affair  as  quiet  as  possible  the  man,  who  did  not  live  in 
Bethsaida,  was  sent  home  directly,  without  returning  to 
the  town. 

In  keeping  with  his  movements  in  the  past  weeks  Jesus, 
failing  to  find  in  the  lake  region  the  wished-for  quiet  and 
relief  from  the  demand  for  physical  cures,  withdrew  again 
to  the  north,  this  time  to  the  region  about  Caesarea 
Philippi,  about  a  day's  journey  from  Bethsaida.4  He 
appears  not  to  have  entered  Caesarea  Philippi  itself — 
Philip's  handsome  capital — but  went  to  various  villages 
in  the  vicinity.     How .  long  he  remained  in  this  region 

*Mk.  8:23.  2Mk.  8:23.  8MTc.  8:24-25. 

«Mk.  8:27;  Mt.  16:13;  Lk.  9:18. 


I98  THE   HISTORICAL   JESUS 

does  not  appear.  He  seems  to  have  been  little  known 
here,  and  not  until  the  close  of  his  stay  do  we  hear  of  a 
request  for  healing.1  This  was  made,  in  the  first  in- 
stance, to  his  disciples,  not  to  him,  but  they  were  unable 
to  cast  out  the  demon  from  the  epileptic  boy.2  The  treat- 
ment of  the  case  by  Jesus  is  noteworthy  because  of  what 
he  said  in  regard  to  faith.  When  confronted  with  his 
disciples'  failure,  he  spoke,  apparently  with  deep  feeling, 
of  the  unbelief  of  that  generation.8  Then,  before  taking 
the  boy  in  hand,  he  awakened  trust  in  the  father's  heart,4 
and  finally,  in  the  private  conversation  with  his  disciples, 
he  attributed  their  failure  to  lack  of  faith.5  Thus  it  is 
plain  that  in  his  thought  these  cures  called  for  faith  both 
in  the  healer  and  his  patient,  or,  as  in  this  case,  in  some 
one  who  represented  the  patient. 

This  stay  in  the  region  of  Caesarea  Philippi  was  not 
devoted  by  Jesus  to  his  disciples  exclusively.6  It  seems 
that  he  preached  to  others,  and  was  uninterrupted  by  calls 
for  the  healing  of  disease,  that  is,  until  the  instance  which 
has  just  been  considered. 

And  yet  the  great  event  of  these  days  was  not  his 
preaching  of  the  kingdom  of  God  and  the  possible 
winning  of  new  disciples:  it  was  that  which  took  place 
within  the  circle  of  the  Twelve.  Now  for  the  first  time 
a  disciple  called  him  "Christ,"  and  he  not  only  did  not 
check  this  utterance  but  rather  sought  it  Yet  not  for 
his  own  glory  did  he  seek  it,  nor  as  a  first  step  toward 
the  realization  of  the  disciples'  dream  of  a  Messianic 
kingdom.  He  sought  it  that  he  and  his  apostles  might 
be  bound  the  more  closely  together  for  the  dark  days 
which  he  knew  were  approaching.  It  must  have  been 
indelibly  impressed  upon  the  memory  of  the  disciples 
that  immediately  after  this  acceptance  by  Jesus  of  the 
great  title  of  hope,  the  title  "Messiah,"  he  announced  his 
death.7     Thus  the  darkest,  most  bewildering  problem  of 

1  Mk.  9:14;   Mt.  17:14;   Lk.  9:37. 

3  Mk.  9:18;   Mt.  17:16;  Lk.  9:40. 
8  Mk.  9:19;  Mt.  17:17;  Lk.  9:41. 

4  Mk.   9:21-24. 

8  Mk.  9:28-29;  Mt.   17:19-20. 
•Mk.   8:34;    Lk.   9:23. 
/TMk.  8:31;  Mt.   16:21;  Lk.  9:22. 


/ 


FROM  THE  JORDAN  TO  CAESAREA  PHILIPPI  I99 

their  new  life  followed  closely  on  the  hour  that  may  well 
have  been  to  them  the  gladdest  of  all  hours  since  they  had 
come  to  know  Jesus.1 

We  have  now  traced  the  course  of  Jesus  from  his  first 
preaching  in  Capernaum  up  to  the  days  at  Caesarea 
Philippi.  We  see  him  here  surrounded  by  a  little  band 
of  men,  some  of  whom  at  least  believed  him  to  be  their 
Messiah,  and  all  of  whom,  with  the  possible  exception  of 
Judas,  must  have  been  personally  attached  to  him. 
Abroad  in  the  land  where  he  has  worked  men  hold  con- 
cerning him  widely  divergent  views,  some  honorable, 
some  dishonorable.  He  is  a  prophet,  or  Elijah,  or  John 
the  Baptist,  to  some;  to  others,  a  glutton  and  a  wine- 
bibber,  a  friend  of  publicans  and  sinners,  who  works  cures 
by  the  aid  of  Beelzebub.  Some  of  the  seed  of  his  preach- 
ing has  fallen  on  good  ground,  others  have  fallen  by  the 
wayside,  or  on  rocky  soil,  or  among  thorns.  He  has 
found  in  his  own  experience  that  the  kingdom  of  God  is 
as  a  grain  of  mustard  seed  and  as  a  net  that  encloses  at 
the  same  time  both  bad  fish  and  good.  He  has  found  also 
that  it  is  a  difficult  thing  to  lead  men  up  into  the  quiet 
place  of  sonship  to  God.  Yet  he  has  attached  a  few  men 
closely  to  himself,  and  in  this  fact  lies  his  hope  for  the 
future. 

1  It  is  remarkable  that  the  single  tradition  of  Matthew  and  that  of  Luke 
add  practically  nothing  to  this  sketch  which  is  based  on  the  Logia  and  the 
common  synoptic  tradition.  Mt.  10:5  is  obviously  spoken  from  the  stand- 
point of  later  times.     Lk.  8:1-3  may  well  be  regarded  as  historical. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE  PUBLIC  CAREER:  FROM  CAESAREA  PHILIPPI 
TO  THE  TRIUMPHAL  ENTRY 

The  problems  of  the  career  of  Jesus  increase  as  we 
pass  on  from  the  critical  days  spent  at  Caesarea  Philippi. 
It  has  already  been  pointed  out  that  the  confession  of 
faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  was  immediately  followed 
by  his  announcement  of  the  suffering  which  he  saw 
awaiting  him.  It  is  to  be  noticed  now  that  it  was  also 
soon  followed  by  his  final  departure  from  Galilee,  where, 
according  to  the  oldest  sources,  he  had  spent  all  the  time 
since  his  return  from  the  Jordan  and  the  wilderness. 
Journeying  as  quietly  as  possible  he  came  down  from  the 
mountains,  where  his  heart  had  experienced  a  new  and 
deep  joy,1  and  passing  through  Galilee  he  stopped  at 
Capernaum.2  On  the  way  thither  he  told  his  disciples 
that  the  Son  of  Man  was  to  be  delivered  into  the  hands 
of  men3 — the  same  ominous  word  that  he  had  uttered 
first  before  leaving  the  region  of  Caesarea  Philippi.  Yet 
it  is  said  that  they  understood  it  not,  and  were  afraid  to 
ask  him  about  it.4  They  must  have  had  at  least  a  vague 
understanding  of  the  word  or  they  would  not  have 
feared  to  ask  for  an  explanation.  They  must  have  felt 
that  it  meant  some  great  suffering — a  fact  they  could  not 
harmonize  with  Messiahship. 

Matthew  and  Luke  abbreviate  Mark's  version  of  the 
words  of  Jesus  and  by  so  doing  make  it  more  difficult  to 
understand  the  bewilderment  of  the  disciples.  They  have 
only  the  statement  that  the  Son  of  Man  is  to  be  delivered 
into  the  hands  of  men :  Mark  has  the  announcement  of 

1  It  seems  to  me  not  unlikely  that  Mt.  11:25-27  was  spoken  at  the  time  of 
Peter's  confession. 

aMk.  9:33;  Mt.  17:24- 

8  Mk.  9:31;   Mt  17:22;  Lk.  9:44. 

*Mk.  9:3a;  Lk.  9:45. 

200 


FROM  CAESAREA  TO  THE  TRIUMPHAL  ENTRY  201 

death,  and  of  a  "rising"  after  three  days.1  This  latter 
word  may  well  have  been  the  most  unintelligible  of  all, 
while  the  word  about  "death"  must  have  filled  them  with 
foreboding  and  with  an  unwillingness  to  probe  the  sub- 
ject further. 

Arrived  in  Capernaum  and  lodging  perhaps  in  Peter's 
house,  two  incidents  of  recent  occurrence  were  made  the 
subject  of  remark  by  Jesus.  First,  there  had  been  a  dis- 
pute among  the  Twelve  as  to  their  relative  greatness.2 
The  point  is  left  vague  in  the  text,  but  may  be  somewhat 
defined  from  the  general  situation.  Jesus  had  recently 
acknowledged  his  Messiahship  to  them,  and  if  they  were 
disputing  as  to  who  of  them  was  greatest,  the  probability 
is  that  they  were  thinking  of  the  future,  of  some  sort  of 
outward  Messianic  kingdom  and  of  their  relative  rank  in 
that.  How  they  harmonized  such  a  thought  with  the 
repeated  word  of  Jesus  in  regard  to  his  approaching  death 
does  not  appear. 

This  thoroughly  human  dispute  gave  Jesus  the  text  for 
a  personal  talk  to  the  Twelve,  the  principle  and  illustra- 
tion of  which  were  not  forgotten.  The  principle  was 
that  humility  is  the  way  to  greatness,  and  the  living 
illustration  was  a  little  child.8  Embracing  the  child  and 
setting  it  in  the  midst  of  the  Twelve  were  symbolic  acts 
of  obvious  significance. 

The  second  incident4 — that  of  an  unknown  man  who 
cast  out  demons  independently  of  the  apostles — may  with 
most  probability  be  located  in  the  vicinity  of  Capernaum, 
for  there  Jesus  was  best  known.  It  is  highly  suggestive 
in  its  bearing  on  the  cures  wrought  by  Jesus.  Here  was 
a  man  who  by  using  the  name  of  Jesus  cured  people  who 
were  supposed  to  be  possessed  by  demons.  His  success 
is  unquestioned.  Apparently  he  had  taken  up  this  merci- 
ful work  entirely  on  his  own  responsibility.  Jesus  in- 
ferred from  the  man's  deeds  that  he  was  his  friend,  and 
that  he  would  not  quickly  speak  evil  of  him.5     The  fact 

1  MTc.  9:31. 

2  Mk.  9:34;  Lk.  9:46. — Matthew's  transformation  of  the  question  (18:1) 
mav  have  been  occasioned  by  a  desire  to  spare  the  apostles. 

lMk.  9:35-37;  Mt.   18:25;   Ik.  9:47-48. 

4Mk.  9:38-41;  LI-  9:4950.  BMk.  9:39. 


202  THE   HISTORICAL   JESUS 

of  the  man's  success  is  striking  proof  of  the  profound 
impression  made  by  Jesus  as  a  healer.  It  also  clearly 
shows  that  miraculous  power  was  not  needed  in  order 
that  one  might  cast  out  demons.  According  to  the  oldest 
Gospel1  Jesus  added  a  severe  warning  against  that  pure 
formalism  which  was  manifest  in  the  apostles'  attempt 
to  suppress  this  unknown  worker.  One  might  better  be 
cast  into  the  lake,  he  said,  with  a  great  stone  fastened 
about  the  neck,  than  cause  "one  of  these  little  ones"  to 
stumble,  that  is,  in  the  present  instance,  to  stop  casting 
out  demons  in  the  name  of  Jesus.  The  severity  of  this 
language  is  justified  when  one  considers  that  this  spirit 
which  his  own  apostles  had  exhibited  was  the  very  antip- 
odes of  that  spirit  which  it  was  his  sole  purpose  in  life 
to  implant  in  the  hearts  of  men.  If  the  words  of  Mk. 
9  43,  45,  47  were  also  spoken  at  this  time,  then  Jesus 
gave  still  greater  emphasis  to  his  warning  by  dwelling  on 
the  value  of  loyalty  to  him — for  so  we  interpret  the  words 
about  not  stumbling.  Here  we  touch  on  that  conscious- 
ness of  being  the  supreme  revealer  of  God  which  was 
discussed  in  an  earlier  chapter. 

With  this  warning  to  his  disciples,  more  severe  in  tone 
than  any  word  of  Jesus  thus  far  considered,  may  be 
associated  that  utterance  of  the  Logia  concerning  the 
Galilean  cities  where  he  had  labored.2  Unmistakably 
does  this  indicate  that  these  cities  were,  as  a  whole, 
untouched  by  the  preaching  of  Jesus.  Of  Capernaum  we 
know  that  it  had  been  moved  by  his  mighty  works,  but 
moved  only  to  an  eager  desire  to  see  and  experience 
more  of  them.  The  present  passage  is  most  significant 
because  it  is  the  first  word  of  Jesus  that  indicates  what 
he  had  hoped  from  his  works  of  healing.  If  such  works 
had  been  done  in  Tyre  and  Sidon,  they  would  have 
repented  in  sackcloth  and  ashes.  Jesus  makes  no  men- 
tion here  of  his  preaching:  the  works  alone  would  have 
wrought  repentance.  It  is  not  clear  whether  the  preach- 
ing, which  was  always  in  the  foreground  of  Jesus'  min- 

1  Mk.  9:42. — In  Mt.  18:6  the  "little  ones"  are  the  class  represented  bv 
Lhe  child,  but  this  connection  affords  no  explanation  of  the  word  "stumble. 

2  Mt.    11:20-^4;   Lk.   10:13-16. 


FROM  CAESAREA  TO  THE  TRIUMPHAL  ENTRY  203 

istry,  is  here  taken  for  granted  as  working  together  with 
the  deeds  of  healing.  If  it  is  not,  we  must  ask  why  Jesus 
thought  that  his  mighty  works  ought  to  have  led  men  to 
repentance.  But  to  this  question  the  narrative  gives  no 
answer.  We  may  suppose  that,  since  Jesus  looked  upon 
his  mighty  works  as  wrought  by  the  power  of  God 
through  him,  he  felt  that  they  ought  to  have  made  men 
sensible  of  the  presence  of  God,  and  so  have  made  them 
turn  from  their  sins;  but  it  is  equally  possible  to  hold 
that,  in  his  thought,  the  kindness  which  was  manifested 
in  these  acts  of  healing  ought  to  have  been  a  motive  strong 
enough  to  turn  men  unto  God.  In  any  event  we  have 
here  a  confession  of  Jesus  that,  as  regards  these  cities  at 
least,  his  ministry  of  healing  had  failed  to  accomplish 
what  he  had  hoped  from  it. 

That  ministry,  as  well  as  the  ministry  of  preaching, 
was  now  ended  as  far  as  Galilee  was  concerned.  There 
is  no  certain,  or  even  valuable,  clue,  in  the  oldest  Gos- 
pel as  to  how  long  it  had  continued.  The  circumstance 
that  the  narrative  up  to  this  point  contains  no  allusion 
to  the  occurrence  of  a  Passover  may  indeed  favor  the 
view  that  none  had  occurred  since  Jesus  returned  to 
Capernaum. 

In  the  single  tradition  of  Matthew  there  is  a  reference 
to  the  collection  of  the  temple  tax,1  and  that  event  is 
located  about  the  time  of  Jesus'  final  departure  from 
Galilee.  If  we  assume  that  in  the  days  of  Jesus  the 
temple  tax  was  collected  in  Palestine  shortly  before  the 
Passover,  as  was  done  in  later  centuries,  according  to  the 
Talmud,  this  passage  would  obviously  help  to  fix  the  time 
when  Jesus  left  Galilee,  but  this  assumption  is  of  a  some- 
what doubtful  character.  One  other  consideration  should 
be  noted  as  having  a  bearing  on  the  length  of  the  ministry 
of  Jesus  in  Galilee,  viz.  the  radical  opposition  between 
him  and  the  religious  authorities.  Even  though  his  work 
was  in  the  northern  province,  at  a  distance  from  the 
theological  center,  it  is  not  probable  that  the  hierarchy 
would  long  tolerate  so.  powerful  and  dangerous  an  enemy. 

Taken  together  these  points,  while  proving  nothing, 

1  Mt.  17:24-27. 


204  THE   HISTORICAL  JESUS 

may  be  allowed  to  favor  the  view  that  the  Passover  which 
was  drawing  near  when  Jesus  left  Galilee  forever  was 
the  first  since  his  public  ministry  began. 

When  Jesus  left  Capernaum,  whither  he  had  come 
from  Caesarea  Philippi,  he  set  his  face  to  go  to  Jerusa- 
lem, and  the  journey  was  a  memorable  one.  According 
to  the  oldest  narrative  he  went  through  Perea,1  the  longer 
route  to  the  capital,  but  Luke  in  a  passage  which  bears 
the  evident  stamp  of  trustworthiness  says  that  he  started 
by  the  short  Samaritan  route.2  He  does  not  indeed  speak 
at  all  of  the  Perean  way,  but  neither  does  his  narrative 
exclude  the  possibility  that  Jesus,  being  repulsed  in 
Samaria,  altered  his  course  and  crossed  the  Jordan  into 
Perea.  He  no  less  than  Mark  lets  Jesus  go  up  to  Jeru- 
salem from  Jericho,3  which  implies  that  he  had  come 
down  the  Jordan  valley. 

The  story  of  being  repulsed  in  a  Samaritan  village 
brings  out  the  deep,  sad  contrast  between  the  spirit  of 
the  apostles  and  the  spirit  of  Jesus.  James  and  John, 
zealous  for  the  honor  of  a  Master  whom  they  believed 
to  be  the  Messiah,  suggested  destroying  the  village  by 
calling  down  fire  from  heaven,  for  which  act  they  might 
have  pleaded  an  Old  Testament  precedent.4  And  this 
proposition  was  submitted  by  two  of  the  four  disciples 
who  had  been  longest  with  Jesus !  It  may  have  been 
hard  for  Jesus  to  hear  that  he  could  not  find  lodging  in 
the  Samaritan  village,  but  certainly  it  was  not  so  hard  as 
to  hear  this  suggestion  of  vengeance  from  his  intimate 
friends.  He  could  lodge  indeed  under  God's  open  sky, 
but  when  should  he  succeed  in  begetting  a  new  spirit  in 
these  men !  Thus  unpropitiously  did  the  journey  toward 
Jerusalem  begin. 

The  next  scene  is  in  Perea,  but  in  what  town  or  locality 
we  are  not  told.  No  place  is  mentioned  by  name  until 
they  cross  back  to  the  west  side  and  come  to  Jericho.5 
But  the  journey  through  Perea  was  not  without  incident. 
That  it  was  a  leisurely  journey,  extending  through  a 
number  of  days  if  not  weeks,  is  implied  in  Mark's  state- 

1  Mk.    10:1.  3  Lk.  9:51-56.  *  Lk.   18:35;   19:1. 

*2   Kings   1:10-13.  ■  Mk.    10:46. 


FROM  CAESAREA  TO  THE  TRIUMPHAL  ENTRY  205 

ment  that  crowds  gathered  and^that  Jesus  taught  them.1 
For  the  first  time  in  his  ministry  when  he  met  and  taught 
crowds  of  people  there  is  no  reference  to  mighty  works.2 
Doubtless  there  were  sick  people  in  Perea  im*the  villages 
through  which  Jesus  passed,  and  doubtless  they  would 
have  been  glad  to  be  healed.  Since,  however,  the  oldest 
narrative,  which  gives  prominence  to  the  healing  ministry 
of  Jesus,  knows  of  no  cure  on  this  Perean  journey,  we 
have  to  conclude  that  his  aversion  to  healing,  which  has 
been  noticed  from  the  close  of  the  longer  stay  in  Caper- 
naum, still  continued. 

Three  or  four  incidents,  according  to  the  oldest  narra- 
tive, marked  this  journey  through  Perea.  First,  there 
was  the  question  about  divorce,3  which  concerns  us  here 
only  as  showing  that  the  critics  of  Jesus  were  on  the 
watch,  hoping,  in  this  instance,  to  discredit  him  with  the 
people,  possibly  also  with  Herod  Antipas.  The  popular 
view  regarding  divorce  was  extremely  lax.  Antipas  had 
arrested  the  Baptist  because  he  condemned  his  marriage 
with  Herodias,  and  the  enemies  of  Jesus,  apprehending 
that  he  would  severely  condemn  the  lax  view,  may  have 
hoped  to  involve  him  in  trouble  with  the  ruler  of  Perea, 
or,  at  least,  to  have  hurt  his  reputation  with  the  multitude. 

The  second  incident — that  of  bringing  to  him  little 
children4 — also  had  a  most  discouraging  side,  though, 
unlike  the  first,  it  was  not  altogether  disappointing.  That 
there  were  people  who  desired  his  blessing  for  their  little 
ones  was,  in  these  dark  days,  a  bit  of  glad  sunshine — an 
evidence  that  some  fathers  and  mothers  thought  him  a 
good  and  kindly  man  if  nothing  more.  But  here  again, 
among  his  apostles,  was  manifest  a  lack  of  sympathy 
with  him  and  with  the  Gospel,  which  moved  him  with 
deep  displeasure.5  For  they  would  have  stayed  the  par- 
ents  from  bringing  their  children  to  Jesus — for  what 

»Mk.   10:1. 

*Mt.    19:2  is  intrinsically  less  probable  than  the  older  source. 
•Mk.  10:2-12;  Mt.  19:3-4.  7-8;  Lk.  16:18. 
4Mk.   10:13-16;  Mt.   19:13-15;  Lk.   18:15-17. 

•  Matthew    and    Luke    drop    this    feature    of    the    oldest    Gospel,    perhaps 
inking  that  it  marred  the  picture  of  a  divine   Saviour's  dignity. 


206  THE   HISTORICAL   JESUS 

reason  we  are  not  told.  How  far  they  were  from  his 
view  of  the  matter  is  clear  from  his  declaration  that  the 
kingdom  of  heaven — and  therefore  any  service  that  he 
could  render — belonged  to  just  such  persons  as  these 
children. 

The  third  Perean  incident  in  the  common  synoptic 
tradition  is  that  of  an  upright  rich  man  who  wanted  to 
know  what  he  should  do  to  make  sure  of  eternal  life.1 
There  was  a  frankness  and  earnestness  about  the  man 
who  had  kept  the  commandments  from  his  youth  that 
deeply  impressed  Jesus,  and  he  would  fain  have  had  him 
as  a  disciple,  but  only  on  the  condition  that  he  was  ready 
to  give  up  everything  for  his  sake.  That  was  too  high  a 
doctrine  for  the  man,  and  he  went  away  with  downcast 
countenance.  Commenting  on  the  incident — which  may 
not  have  been  the  only  one  of  its  kind  in  his  experience — 
Jesus  amazed  his  disciples  by  his  strong  language,  saying 
that  it  was  easier  for  a  camel  to  go  through  a  needle's  eye 
than  for  a  rich  man  to  enter  the  kingdom  of  God.  To 
their  wondering  exclamation  "And  who  can  be  saved  1" 
he  replied  in  substance  that  no  one  (i.e.,  of  the  rich) 
could  be  saved  without  the  aid  of  the  Almighty. 

This  incident  was  naturally  discouraging,  and  possibly 
there  was  something  in  the  look  or  tone  of  Jesus  which 
led  Peter  to  speak  his  word  of  comfort — "Behold  we 
have  left  all  and  followed  thee."2  The  general  purport  of 
the  response  of  Jesus  to  this  word  of  Peter  is  clear :  one 
who  leaves  all  for  his  sake  shall  receive  much  more  than 
he  leaves.  According  to  Mark,  he  shall  receive  an 
hundred-fold  in  kind  for  that  which  he  is  obliged  to  give 
up  but  with  persecutions — a  clause  which  suggests  that 
all  the  details  preceding — houses,  brothers,  sisters,  moth- 
ers, children,  and  fields — are  not  only  to  be  understood 
figuratively,  but  also  as  a  figurative  expression  of  spirit- 
ual goods.  This  is  the  great  reward  for  the  present  time, 
and  that  in  the  coming  age  is  eternal  life. 

Another  incident  which  the  synoptists  put  before  the 

*Mk.    10:17-27;   Mt.    19:16-26;   Lk.    18:18-23. 

2  Mk.  10:28;  Mt.  19:27;  Lk.  18:28. — Matthew's  addition  "what  then  shall 
we  have?"   is  unnecessarily  hard  on   Peter. 


FROM  CAESAREA  TO  THE  TRIUMPHAL  ENTRY  20/ 

arrival  of  Jesus  at  Jericho,  and  therefore  presumably  in 
the  Perean  days,  is  a  repetition  of  the  announcement  of 
his  approaching  death,1  made  first  in  the  region  of 
Caesarea  Philippi  and  again  before  Jesus  with  the 
Twelve  reached  Capernaum.  According  to  the  dramatic 
representation  of  the  oldest  source  Jesus  on  a  certain 
occasion  was  walking  in  advance  of  his  apostles;  they 
were  amazed,  apparently  because  he  did  this ;  others  who 
were  following  were  afraid,  whether  for  their  own 
safety  or,  more  probably,  for  his,  does  not  appear.2  Now 
this  state  of  things  implies  that  something  unusual  had 
taken  place.  We  may  perhaps  explain  the  order  of  the 
little  cavalcade  and  the  aroused  feelings  of  those  who 
followed  Jesus  by  supposing  that  the  incident  of  Lk.  13: 
31-33  had  just  occurred,  or  that  the  ominous  word  about 
the  accomplishment  of  his  "baptism"  had  just  been 
spoken.8  But  whatever  the  occasion  may  have  been,  the 
scene  is  suggestive,  and  the  account  can  hardly  have 
arisen  except  from  the  words  of  a  participant.  Jesus 
goes  in  advance  as  though  "straitened"  until  his  bap- 
tism should  be  accomplished;  the  Twelve  are  amazed, 
and  others,  presumably  friendly  to  him  if  not  outspoken 
disciples,  are  afraid.  Jesus  takes  the  Twelve  apart,  and 
tells  them  what  is  to  befall  the  Son  of  Man  in  Jerusalem. 
The  thought  that  is  uppermost  in  his  mind  appears  to  be 
that  they  shall  fully  know  what  they  are  about  to  face. 
Yet  it  seems  doubtful  whether  they  understood  his  words 
any  more  deeply  and  truly  than  on  the  former  occasions 
when  he  had  said  something  of  the  same  sort.  For 
James  and  John,  when  they  got  opportunity,  asked  for 
the  first  seats  in  his  glory,4'  as  though  the  intervening 
events  were  of  slightest  moment.  Not  so  in  the  thought 
of  Jesus.  These  events  were  rather  the  indispensable 
stepping-stones  to  that  "glory,"  and  could  these  forward 
disciples,  who  already  contemplated  the  first  seats  in  his 
kingdom,  share  these  events  at  his  side?  Their  answer 
showed  how  little  they  appreciated  what  he  had  said. 

1  Mk.  10:32-34;  Mt  20:17-19;  Lk.  18:31-34. 

*Mk.  10:3a. 

•  Lk.  12:49-50. 

4  Mk.   10:35-40;  Mt.  20:20-23. 


208  THE   HISTORICAL   JESUS 

Then  he  told  them  that  their  request  went  beyond  his 
authority.  He  could  indeed  assure  them  of  suffering, 
but  not  of  the  rank  they  would  attain  in  the  kingdom  of 
God. 

One  discouragement  followed  swiftly  upon  another  in 
these  days.  The  ambition  of  the  two  aroused  the  indig- 
nation of  the  remaining  ten,  and  Jesus  saw  the  veritable 
spirit  of  the  world  in  the  men  in  whom  he  had  long 
striven  to  create  the  spirit  of  the  kingdom.1  Once  more 
therefore  he  told  them  what  a  difference  lay  between 
them  as  his  disciples  and  the  world,  and  illustrated  the 
familiar  principle  from  the  event  that  was  now  constantly 
in  view.2 

Thus  far  we  have  followed  the  common  synoptic  tradi- 
tion, with  the  addition  of  a  single  detail  from  Luke.  But 
Luke  has  other  material  peculiar  to  himself  which  may 
not  improbably  belong  in  these  Perean  days  when  Jesus 
was  slowly  journeying  toward  Jerusalem.  Such  is  the 
incident  of  a  man  who  volunteered  to  follow  Jesus,  but 
who  wished  first  to  bid  farewell  to  his  family.3  The 
Master  regarded  this  request  as  a  sign  of  divided  affec- 
tion, and  said,  "No  man.  having  put  his  hand  to  the 
plough  and  looking  back,  is  fit  for  the  kingdom  of  God." 
Again,  to  this  period  may  well  be  assigned  that  dark  and 
threatening  word  of  Jesus  about  a  mission  to  cast  fire  on 
the  earth  and  about  a  baptism  which  he  had  to  meet.4 
Not  that  the  fire  of  conflict  was  now  first  kindled,  for 
that  indeed  was  not  the  case,  but  the  heat  of  the  conflict 
was  now  at  hand.  Or,  to  change  the  figure,  the  "bap- 
tism" which  he  had  to  undergo— doubtless  a  symbol  of 
the  dark  days  which  he  foresaw — was  felt  to  be  near,  and 
he  was  "straitened"  until  it  should  be  accomplished;  he 
would  that  it  were  past.  This  desire  is  perhaps  to  be 
understood  in  connection  with  a  word  in  his  message  to 
Herod,  which  may  have  been  spoken  at  about  the  same 
time.  Certain  Pharisees  are  said  to  have  notified  Jesus 
of  Herod's  desire  to  kill  him  and  to  have  advised  him  to 

1  Mk.    10:41;  Mt   20:24;  Lk.  22:24. 

a  Mk.    10:42-45;   ML   20:25-28;  Lk.  22:25-27. 

•  Lk.  9:61-62. 

*Lk.    12:49-50. 


FROM  CAESAREA  TO  THE  TRIUMPHAL  ENTRY  200, 

flee  out  of  Herod's  territory.1  The  reply  of  Jesus  was 
ostensibly  for  Herod,  but  was  fraught  with  definite  in- 
formation for  the  Pharisees  also,  if  they  too,  as  well  as 
Herod,  had  sinister  thoughts  and  designs  against  him: 
"Go  and  say  to  that  fox,  Behold,  I  cast  out  demons  and 
perform  cures  today  and  tomorrow,  and  the  third  day  I 
am  perfected."2  This  word  is  obscure,  but  if  it  contains 
the  thought  that  his  death  was  to  crown  his  ministry, 
then  it  throws  a  light  back  upon  that  other  saying  about 
a  baptism  which  he  wished  were  past.  In  that  light  this 
word  does  not  indicate  impatience  to  be  beyond  the  reach 
of  his  foes,  where  the  wicked  cease  from  troubling,  but 
rather  a  longing  to  have  his  mission  become  more  effec- 
tive. 

It  is  obvious  that  this  message  to  Herod  reflects  a 
conviction  of  Jesus  that  his  end  was  very  near.  The 
"third  day"  I  am  perfected,  that  is,  in  the  immediate 
future.  But  neither  this  conviction  of  the  nearness  of 
his  death,  nor  the  belief  that  it  would  be  in  Jerusalem, 
suggests  supernatural  prevision.  One  had  but  to  know 
the  temper  of  the  hierarchy  and  to  have  observed  the 
meaning  of  recent  events  to  feel  that  a  visit  to  Jerusalem 
would  end  the  career  of  Jesus.  And  surely  Jesus  knew, 
as  no  one  else  did,  the  spirit  of  the  religious  leaders, 
and  he  read  the  signs  of  the  times  with  unparalleled 
insight. 

Thus  with  multiplying  omens  of  evil  days  Jesus  with 
the  Twelve  came  to  Jericho,  to  the  beginning  of  the  last 
stage  of  their  journey.8 

Here  two  memorable  events  occurred,  for  the  story  of 
Lk.  19:1-10  may,  in  point  of  historical  value,  be  set  by 
the  side  of  that  which  the  oldest  Gospel  locates  at  Jericho. 
For  the  first  time  in  days  or  weeks  Jesus  performed  a 
cure,  restoring  sight  to  a  blind  beggar,4  who  had  evidently 
heard  of  him  as  a  healer  and  who  was  not  to  be  cheated 
out  of  his  one  chance  to  get  help.     The  incident  is  notable 


*Llc  13:31. 

'  Lk.   13:32. 

•Mk.   10:46;  Mt  20:29;  Lk.  18:35. 

4Mk.    10:46-52;   Mt.   20:29-34;  Lk.    18:35-43. 

14 


2IO  THE   HISTORICAL   JESUS 

as  the  single  instance  in  the  oldest  Gospel1  where  Jesus 
was  addressed  as  "Son  of  David."  If  this  be  regarded 
as  historical,  we  must  assume  that  the  rumor  of  Jesus' 
mighty  works  had  come  to  this  man's  knowledge  and  that 
he — a  rare  exception  in  his  generation — drew  the  infer- 
ence that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah.  The  reply  of  Jesus 
took  no  account  of  this  particular  character  of  the  man's 
faith,  for  he  said  to  him,  as  he  had  to  others  whose  con- 
fidence in  him  was  simply  confidence  that  he  was  able  to 
help,  "Thy  faith  hath  saved  thee." 

The  second  incident — that  of  Zacchaeus — justified  the 
reputation  of  Jesus  as  a  friend  of  publicans,  for  this  man 
was  a  chief  publican,  perhaps  because  located  at  this 
border-city,  which  was  also  a  center  of  the  balsam  trade 
and  of  other  semi-tropical  products  of  the  Jordan  valley. 
The  reputation  which  Jesus  had  for  friendliness  toward 
publicans,  possibly  also  a  knowledge  of  the  circumstance 
that  one  of  his  chosen  apostles  was  a  publican,  was  suffi- 
cient reason  why  Zacchaeus  was  willing  to  expose  himself 
to  ridicule  by  climbing  into  a  tree  by  the  road  in  order  to 
see  the  famous  rabbi.  The  remarkable  insight  of  Jesus 
and  his  swiftness  of  decision  are  strikingly  illustrated  in 
his  words  to  Zacchaeus.  The  name  and  calling  of  the  man 
he  may  have  learned  from  those  about  him  as  he  passed 
along,  but  that  this  tax-gatherer  up  in  the  tree  would  be  a 
glad  host  for  him  and  probably  also  for  his  apostles,  and 
that  this  was  the  desirable  arrangement  to  make  for  the 
night — these  were  the  intuitive  conclusions  of  the  moment. 
The  fact  of  a  general  murmur  at  this  very  democratic 
step  of  Jesus  may  best  be  regarded  as  springing  out  of 
the  popular  dislike  of  Zacchaeus,  not  as  an  indication  that 
people,  being  proud  of  Jesus,  were  unwilling  that  he 
should  be  contaminated  by  contact  with  one  who  was 
regarded  as  no  better  than  a  robber. 

The  effect  of  the  friendliness  of  Jesus  toward  Zacch- 
aeus and,  as  we  may  suppose,  of  gracious  words  about 
the  kingdom  of  God,  was  that  the  publican  at  once  turned 
a  new  page  and  formed  a  resolve  which  led  Jesus  to  say 
confidently  that  salvation  had  come  to  his  house.     This 

1  There  is  a  single  instance  in  the  Logia  (Mt.   12:23;  Lk.   11:14). 


FROM  CAESAREA  TO  THE  TRIUMPHAL  ENTRY  211 

was  one  of  the  few  incidents  belonging  to  these  days 
which  were  fitted  to  encourage  Jesus,  and  to  sustain  his 
confidence  in  the  ultimate  triumph  of  his  mission. 

There  is  in  Luke  a  hint  of  suppressed  excitement  as 
the  company  of  Galileans  climbed  the  steep  road  from 
Jericho  to  Jerusalem,  for  on  this  journey  he  puts  the 
parable  of  the  Pounds,1  which  was  spoken,  he  thought,  to 
counteract  the  belief  entertained  by  those  who  were  with 
Jesus  that  the  kingdom  of  God  was  immediately  to 
appear.  The  thought  of  Luke  has  in  its  favor  those  two 
passages  belonging  to  recent  days  which  represent  the 
apostles  as  eagerly  considering  who  were  to  have  the 
first  places  in  the  kingdom.  This  eagerness  is  best  ex- 
plained if  they  thought  that,  notwithstanding  what  Jesus 
had  said  of  his  approaching  death,  the  kingdom  was  to  be 
inaugurated  when  he  should  reach  Jerusalem.2 

With  the  arrival  at  Bethany  a  few  days  before  the  last 
act  of  the  public  career  of  Jesus  we  come  to  a  remarkable 
expansion  and  fulness  of  our  sources.  About  one-third 
of  the  oldest  Gospel  is  devoted  to  an  account  of  the  short 
interval  between  the  arrival  in  Bethany  and  the  morning 
of  the  execution — a  period  of  which  the  Logia  has  no 
clear  trace  whatsoever.  This  sudden  broadening  of  the 
early  tradition,  due  in  part,  we  may  suppose,  to  the  fact 
that  the  last  words  and  acts  of  a  great  leader  naturally 
impress  themselves  most  deeply  on  the  minds  of  his  fol- 
lowers, and  in  part  to  the  fact  that  the  Apostolic  Church 
ascribed  fundamental  importance  to  the  death  of  Jesus,  is 
not  without  certain  interesting  chronological  m&rks, 
which  are  clearest  and  most  consistent  in  the  oldest  Gos- 
pel. Of  no  other  period  in  the  life  of  Jesus  can  anything 
at  all  approaching  a  diary  be  constructed;  but  even  here, 
where  we  seem  to  be  able  to  trace  his  movements  from 
day  to  day,  we  must  be  on  our  guard  against  too  great 
positiveness. 

A  brief  survey  of  these  chronological  hints  may  fitly 
precede  the  final  portion  of  our  narrative. 

1  Lk.  19:11-28. 

3  They  may  reasonably  have  found  support  for  their  belief  in  the  words 
spoken  at  Caesarea  Philippi,  Mk.  9:1. 


212  THE    HISTORICAL   JESUS 

The  evening  of  the  day  of  the  triumphal  entry  into 
Jerusalem  found  Jesus  again  in  Bethany.1  The  following 
nights  were  spent  without  the  city,  but  Mark  does  not  say 
that  Jesus  came  again  to  Bethany  until  14 13.  The  state- 
ment of  Luke  that  Jesus  lodged  on  the  Mount  of  Olives,2 
presumably  in  the  open  air,  may  be  regarded  as  simply  a 
more  definite  description  than  Mark's  statement3  that  he 
was  in  the  habit  of  going  forth  out  of  the  city.  The 
morning  of  the  second  day  after  the  entry  is  specified* 
and  the  subsequent  visit  to  the  temple,5  which  was  "two 
days"  before  the  Passover.0  Now  as  Jesus  was  put  to 
death  on  the  day  before  the  Sabbath,7  i.e.,  on  Friday,  the 
observance  of  the  Passover  must  have  fallen  on  Thursday 
evening.  Probably  the  expression  "two  days  before  the 
Passover"  takes  us  back  to  Tuesday,  in  which  case  the 
first  day  after  the  entry  was  Monday  and  the  entry  itself 
on  Sunday. 

Adopting  this  chronological  outline  as  the  only  one 
that  makes  serious  claims  of  trustworthiness,  we  must 
conclude  that  the  Sabbath  was  spent  in  Jericho,  probably 
in  the  home  of  Zacchaeus — a  fact  which  would  help  to 
account  for  Bartimaeus'  knowledge  of  Jesus  and  which 
would  also  render  the  transformation  of  Zacchaeus  more 
intelligible.  If  the  pilgrims  set  out  for  Jerusalem  in  the 
early  morning  and  rested  during  the  heat  of  the  day,  the 
entry  into  Jerusalem  would  have  fallen  in  the  late  after- 
noon, as  Mark  implies.8 

This  entry  amid  cheering  crowds  who  hailed  Jesus 
as  coining  in  the  Lord's  name  and  hailed  the  coming 
kingdom  of  David — all  so  different  from  the  absolute 
public  reserve  of  Jesus  hitherto,  in  regard  to  his  Mes- 
siahship — how  is  it  to  be  judged  according  to  the  oldest 
sources  ? 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  to  be  regarded  not  as  a  formal 
plan  but  as  a  momentary  inspiration.  That  Jesus  pur- 
posed to  make  a  public  assertion,  in  Jerusalem,  of  his 
claim  to  be  the  Messiah,  save  as  he  had  already  done  else- 

*Mk.    1 1:1 1.  »Mk.  11:27. 

"Lk.   21:37.  eMk.  14:2. 

»Mk.   11:19.  TMk.  .5:42. 

*Mk.    11:20.  »Mk.  11:11. 


FROM  CAESAREA  TO  THE  TRIUMPHAL  ENTRY  213 

where  by  his  divine  sympathy  and  by  his  teaching  of  the 
kingdom  of  God,  cannot  be  affirmed. 

The  incident  of  the  ass  bears  the  stamp  of  unpre- 
meditatedness.  The  whole  thing  was  arranged  on  the 
spur  of  the  moment.  Jesus  sent  two  disciples  to  a  near 
village1  where  an  ass  was  tied  in  the  open  street.2  They 
were  to  say  to  the  owner,  'The  Master  has  need  of  it, 
and  straightway  he  will  return  it."3  The  probability  is 
that  Jesus  had  seen  the  ass4  shortly  before,  as  they  had 
left  one  of  the  villages  through  which  they  passed,  and 
then,  possibly  as  he  reflected  on  Zech.  9:9  and  perhaps 
at  the  same  time  saw  throngs  coming  forth  to  meet  him,5 
suddenly  resolved  to  send  for  it  and  to  ride  into  the  city. 
But  this  mode  of  entry  was  hardly  the  same  as  a  Mes- 
sianic declaration :  it  was  rather  a  living  parable,  yet  one 
whose  meaning  would  be  caught  by  few  if  by  any.  No 
doubt  those  who  cried  "Hosanna"  and  who  spoke  of  the 
coming  Davidic  Kingdom  were  filled  with  the  idea  that 
Jesus  was  about  to  do  some  wonderful  thing  and  in- 
augurate the  wished-for  Messianic  reign.  Nor  was  it 
the  wish  of  Jesus  that  they  should  be  silent.  It  was  high 
time  that  he  should  be  publicly  recognized.  Were  all 
men  now  to  hold  their  peace,  after  what  they  had  seen 
and  heard  in  the  past  months,  the  very  stones  would  cry 
out.6 

Public  recognition,  yes,  but  let  there  be  due  heed  to  his 
claims.  This  entry  does  not  suggest  a  changed  concep- 
tion of  Messiahship  in  Jesus'  mind.  It  is  peaceful,  not 
martial.  The  disciples  have  boughs  in  their  hands,  not 
bows  and  spears.  The  Master  does  not  own  even  the 
humble  beast  that  he  rides,  but  has  borrowed  it  for  the 
occasion.  The  people  who  are  shouting  are  a  small 
company  of  Galileans:  they  are  not  the  rich  and  mighty 

1MTc.   11:2.  2Mk.    11:4.  < 

•  Mk.  11:3. — The  promise  to  return  the  ass  is  omitted  in  Matthew  and 
Luke.  In  Matthew  (21:3)  its  place  is  taken  by  words  which  refer  not  to 
Jesus  but  to  the  owner  of  the  ass.  Both  the  omission  and  the  substitute 
may  be  explained  as  due  to  a  tendency  to  heighten  the  glory  of  Jesus. 

4  Matthew's  version  of  this  incident,  according  to  which  Jesus  sent  for 
two  beasts  and  sat  on  them  ('  indvut  airStv  ),  was  doubtless  due  to  a  mis- 
understanding of   the  Hebrew   parallelism   in   Zech.   9:9. 

•Consider  the  oi  wpoayoires  in  Mk.   11:9,  and  Jn.   12:12-13. 

•Lk.    19:39-40. 


214  THE   HISTORICAL   JESUS 

of  the  land.  Indeed,  the  scene  is  the  very  antipodes  of 
that  which  the  popular  imagination  would  have  painted  as 
the  fitting  entry  of  the  Messiah  into  the  city  of  David.1 

As  an  outward  and  spectacular  expression  of  Jesus' 
thought  of  himself  it  was  justified  by  its  exceeding  sim- 
plicity, and  justified  further  by  its  being  a  realization  of  a 
Messianic  passage  in  the  Old  Testament.  It  was  espec- 
ially fitting,  if,  as  the  synoptic  record  teaches,  this  was 
the  first  time  Jesus  had  come  to  Jerusalem  since  the 
beginning  of  his  public  ministry.2 

What  became  of  the  singular  cavalcade  when  it  reached 
the  temple  we  do  not  know,  or  how  Jesus  separated  him- 
self from  the  jubilant  Galilean  throng.  That  he  "looked 
around"  on  everything  in  the  sanctuary,  as  the  oldest 
Gospel  informs  us,3  is  quite  in  accord  with  the  view  that 
this  was  his  first  appearance  there  since  his  public  career 
began,  and  also  becomes  fraught  with  peculiar  meaning 
in  view  of  what  transpired  on  the  next  day.  After  this 
significant  survey  of  the  state  of  things  in  the  temple 
Jesus  went  forth  from  the  city,  and  returned  to  Bethany. 

1  How  much  of  the  passage  Lk.  19:41-44  can  be  regarded  as  historical 
it  is  difficult  to  say.  The  minute  description  of  vs.  43-44  is  without  sup- 
port in  the  other  sayings  of  Jesus  regarding  the  future,  and  was  probably 
written  with  the  siege  and  fall  of  the  city  in  mind.  Vs.  4-'  may  have  been 
spoken  by  Jesus,  but  hardly  at  this  time. 

-'  Mt.  21:10-11   implies  that  Jesus  was  unknown  by  face  in  Jerusalem. 

*Mk.  xx:xz. 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE  PUBLIC  CAREER:  FROM  THE  TRIUMPHAL 
ENTRY  TO  GOLGOTHA 

The  day  after  the  entry  into  Jerusalem  was  eventful. 
There  was,  first,  the  incident  of  the  fruitless  figtree1 — 
evidently  somewhat  obscure  to  the  disciples  at  the  time,2 
and  still  obscure.  How  did  it  happen  that  Jesus  was 
hungry -in  the  morning,  just  after  leaving  his  friends  in 
Bethany?  Did  his  disciples  know  that  he  was  hungry 
except  as  they  inferred  it  from  his  coming  to  the  fig-tree? 
But  could  they  be  sure  that  his  motive  in  approaching 
the  fig-tree — one  that  had  leaves  at  this  season — was  to 
get  food?  These  questions  assume  new  importance  in 
view  of  the  improbability  that  Jesus,  simply  because  he 
was  disappointed  in  his  search  for  figs  to  satisfy  hunger, 
would  have  consigned  a  tree  to  perpetual  barrenness. 
One  is  fully  justified  in  regarding  this  as  extremely 
improbable  in  view  of  the  entire  picture  of  the  character 
of  Jesus  which  the  Gospels  give  us.  The  conviction  that 
we  have  but  a  fragmentary  and  inadequate  account  of 
the  incident  is  heightened  by  the  fact  that  while  in  Mark 
the  withering  of  the  tree  was  not  noticed  until  the  fol- 
lowing morning,8  in  Matthew  it  took  place  immediately, 
to  the  great  wonder  of  the  disciples.4  We  are  therefore 
forced  to  the  conclusion  that  no  safe  judgment  can  be 
formed  of  the  historical  incident  back  of  the  narrative. 

But  the  great  event  of  the  day  took  place  in  the  temple. 
What  Jesus  had  observed  the  previous  evening — the 
encroachment  of  business,  and  dishonestly  conducted  busi- 
ness at  that,  upon  the  sacredness  of  the  house  of  God — 

1  Mk.   11:12-14;  Mt.  21:18-19. 

2  Mk.  11:13c;  Mt.  21:20.  Possibly  Luke  omitted  the  incident  because 
it  was  obscure. 

»Mk.  11:21. 
♦Mt.  21:20. 

215 


2l6  THE    HISTORICAL   JESUS 

led  to  the  decision  of  a  forcible  interference  with  the 
traffic  that  was  being  carried  on  there.  This  was  a  bold 
course,  fraught  with  the  utmost  peril  to  himself,  yet  a 
course  which  he  knew  would  be  approved  by  the  moral 
sense  of  the  average  man.  How  it  was  carried  out, 
whether  single-handed  or  with  the  aid  of  the  Twelve  and 
others,  we  are  not  told.  To  understand  how  it  was  pos- 
sible that  a  Galilean  teacher  could  set  at  nought  the 
temple  police,  and  overthrow  the  established  order  of  the 
holy  place,  one  must  remember  the  reputation  that  had 
preceded  his  coming  to  Jerusalem,  and,  still  more  im- 
portant, remember  the  almost  irresistible  power  which 
inheres  in  human  personality  when  there  is  an  absolute 
conviction  of  God's  presence  and  aid.  It  was  with  a 
crushing  quotation  of  Scripture  that  Jesus  laid  violent 
hands  on  the  desecrating  traffic.1 

We  can  only  conjecture  what  Jesus  hoped  to  accomplish 
by  this  violent  overturning  of  temple  practices.  It  may 
indeed  be  that  he  had  no  thought  of  ultimate  conse- 
quences, that  he  did  the  deed  simply  because  he  saw  that 
it  ought  to  be  done,  and  because  he  felt  in  himself  the 
power  to  do  it.  There  was  nothing  distinctively  Mes- 
sianic in  the  act:  any  prophet  might  have  attempted  it 
and,  conceivably,  might  have  accomplished  it ;  at  the  same 
time,  however,  it  was  an  assertion  by  Jesus  of  a  religious 
authority  superior  to  that  of  the  actual  leaders  of  religion. 
It  was  therefore  an  act  which  must  inevitably  focus 
public  attention  upon  him.  Qearly  too  it  was  an  act 
which  the  priests  and  scribes  could  not  forgive.  That 
from  this  hour  they  sought  how  they  might  destroy  him, 
as  the  oldest  Gospel  reports,2  we  cannot  doubt.  To  this 
manifest  hostility  may  be  attributed  the  circumstance  that 
Jesus  is  not  said  to  have  gone  to  Bethany  that  night, 
where  he  might  have  been  seized,  but  simply  to  have  gone 
forth  out  of  the  city.8 

The  next  day  (Tuesday?)  was  spent  largely  in  the 
courts  of  the  temple,  and  must  have  added  to  the  prestige 
of  Jesus  with  the  multitude  no  less  than  to  the  bitterness 


1  Mk.  11:17;  Mt.  21:13;  Lk.   19:46. 
3Mk.   11:18;  Lk.   19:47-48. 


8  Mk.   11:19. 


FROM  THE  TRIUMPHAL  ENTRY  TO  GOLGOTHA  21 J 

of  the  leaders  against  him.  His  brave  act  in  cleansing 
the  temple  insured  him  an  eager  audience,  and  made  it 
unwise  for  the  authorities  to  attempt  to  seize  him  while 
he  was  surrounded  by  listening  crowds.  But  they  could 
seek  to  embarrass  him  and  to  undermine  the  respect 
which  was  being  shown  him.     This  they  accordingly  did. 

First,  an  imposing  body  of  dignitaries  challenged  him 
to  produce  credentials  that  would  justify  his  present 
course.1  They  knew  well  that  he  had  no  credentials  of 
a  technical  sort — that  he  was  not  a  rabbinically  authorized 
teacher,  and  they  may  have  hoped  to  weaken  his  influence 
by  exposing  this  fact.  But  Jesus  silenced  them  with  a 
skillful  counter  question:  "The  baptism  of  John,  was  it 
from  heaven,  or  from  men?"  Their  hostile  attitude 
toward  John2  did  not  allow  them  to  say  that  his  baptism 
was  from  heaven,  and  their  fear  of  the  multitude3  pre- 
vented their  saying  that  his  baptism  was  from  men,  as 
in  their  hearts  they  would  have  liked  to  do.  In  this 
dilemma  they  were  forced  to  confess  their  ignorance— a 
fact  which  must  at  once  have  lowered  their  standing  with 
the  crowd  and  have  raised  that  of  Jesus. 

The  parable  of  the  Unfaithful  Vinedressers4  is  repre- 
sented as  having  been  spoken  on  this  day,  and  this  setting 
appears  to  be  most  suitable.  Indeed,  this  parable  may  be 
regarded  as  a  virtual  reply  to  the  question  concerning 
Jesus'  authority.  If  the  vinedressers  were  intended  to 
represent  the  religious  authorities  in  Israel — the  same 
who  had  just  challenged  him  to  produce  his  credentials — 
then  Jesus  corresponded  to  the  "son/'  and  accordingly 
the  justification  of  his  course  was  the  fact  that  he  had 
been  sent  by  God  for  this  very  work.  In  picturing  the 
son  of  the  householder  as  killed  and  cast  out  of  the  vine- 
yard Jesus  gave  indirect  expression  to  his  sense  of  the 
certainty  and  immediacy  of  his  own  death;  and  the 
declaration  that  the  Lord  of  the  vineyard  would  destroy 
the  unfaithful  vinedressers,  and  would  give  the  vineyard 
to  others,  reflects  a  conviction  of  the  hopelessness  of  the 
spiritual  condition  of  the  religious  leaders. 

1  Mk.  11:27-28;  Mt.  21:23;  Lk.  20:1-2.  2Mt.  3:7;  21:32. 

•  Mk.   11:32.  *Mk.   12:12;  Mt.  21:33-46;  Lk.  20:9-19. 


2l8  THE   HISTORICAL   JESUS 

Thus  this  parable  of  the  Unfaithful  Vinedressers  was 
a  much  more  severe  arraignment  of  the  authorities  of 
the  temple  than  had  been  involved  in  the  reformatory  act 
of  the  preceding  day.  Only  their  fear  of  the  people 
restrained  them  from  seizing  Jesus  on  the  spot.1 

How  intense  the  hatred  of  the  authorities  was  appears 
in  the  fact  that  the  next  scheme  to  entangle  Jesus  was 
carried  out  jointly  by  Pharisees  and  Herodians — parties 
that  were  to  be  blended  only  by  some  overwhelming  com- 
mon danger.2  The  aim  of  these  men  was  to  get  a  yes  or 
a  no  from  Jesus  to  the  question  whether  it  was  lawful  to 
pay  tribute  to  Caesar.8  With  either  answer  they  hoped 
to  gain  an  advantage  over  him.  If  he  said  yes,  the 
Pharisees  might  call  him  a  traitor  to  Israel;  and  if  he 
said  no,  the  Herodians  could  accuse  him  to  the  Governor 
as  disloyal.  But  Jesus  saw  through  their  clever  plan, 
and,  calling  for  a  denarius,  he  asked  whose  the  image  and 
superscription  were.  They  must  acknowledge  that  they 
were  Caesar's.  Then  at  length  he  answered  their  ques- 
tion, but  evaded  their  plot.  For  while  his  answer  was  in 
line  with  Herodian  policy,  so  that  this  party  had  no 
argument  against  him,  it  also  thwarted  the  Pharisees, 
for  it  conceded  the  sovereignty  of  God,  though  in  a 
sphere  distinct  from  Caesar's.  They  have  two  Masters, 
he  said  in  substance,  but  not  in  the  same  sphere;  hence 
they  can  serve  both. 

Then  there  came  Sadducees  who  sought  to  get  the 
better  of  Jesus  in  a  discussion  regarding  the  doctrine  of 
resurrection.4  They  must  have  known  that  on  this  sub- 
ject he  shared  the  view  of  the  Pharisees.  So  they  laid 
before  him  the  case  of  a  woman  who  had  had  seven  legal 
husbands,  and,  assuming  that  if  there  were  a  life  beyond 
the  grave  the  same  order  of  things  must  obtain  in  it  as 
in  the  present,  they  asked  to  which  of  the  seven  she  would 
belong  in  the  resurrection.  In  their  judgment,  this  case 
reduced  the  doctrine  to  an  absurdity.  For  it  would  be 
contrary  to  the  Mosaic  law  that  she  should  be  the  wife 

1  Mk.  12:12;  Mt.  21:46;  Lk.  20:19. 

a  Mk.   12:13;  Mt.  21:15. 

■  Mk.  12:14;  Mt.  22:17;  Lk.  20:22. 

♦Mk.    12:18-27;   Mt.  22:23-33;   Lk.   20:27-38. 


FROM  THE  TRIUMPHAL  ENTRY  TO  GOLGOTHA  210, 

of  all  the  seven  at  the  same  time,  and  they  assumed  that 
she  must  belong  to  one  of  them. 

In  his  reply,  Jesus  simply  denied  their  premise.  The 
old  earthly  relations  are  discontinued  in  the  resurrection. 
People  no  longer  marry  nor  are  given  in  marriage,  but 
they  are  as  angels. 

Jesus  then  goes  on  to  show  from  Scripture  that  the 
belief  in  the  immortality  of  man  is  grounded  in  God's 
relation  to  him.  He  refers  them  to  Jehovah's  words  to 
Moses  at  the  Bush:  "I  am  the  God  of  Abraham,  the  God 
of  Isaac  and  the  God  of  Jacob."1  He  lays  it  down  as  a 
self-evident  truth  that  the  living  God  must  be  the  God  of 
living  ones.  If  then  God  declares  himself  the  God  of 
Abraham  and  Isaac  and  Jacob,  it  follows  that  they  are 
alive,  that  death  did  not  end  their  existence.  To  be  the  God 
of  anyone,  as  of  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob,  is,  for  Jesus, 
to  sustain  a  relation  to  that  one  which  is  essentially  eternal. 
The  highest  that  heart  can  conceive,  the  fulfilment  of  its 
deep  pure  longings,  is  wrapt  up  for  any  one  in  the  asser- 
tion of  Jehovah,  "I  am  his  God."  Thus  the  use  of  the 
passage  in  Exodus  did  not  hinge  on  the  present  tense  of 
the  verb  ("I  am  the  God  of  Abraham"),  but  rather  on 
the  Divine  relationship  between  these  men  and  Jehovah. 

This  incident  of  Jesus*  encounter  with  Sadducees  is 
worthy  of  notice  in  a  general  sketch  of  his  public  career 
because  it  not  only  helps  to  show  how  universal  was  the 
opposition  of  the  ruling  classes  toward  him  on  his  arrival 
in  Jerusalem,  but  also  illustrates  the  astonishing  readiness 
and  breadth  of  his  interpretation  of  Scripture. 

This  latter  point  was  further  illustrated  on  the  same 
occasion  by  Jesus*  reply  to  one  of  the  hair-splitting 
casuistical  questions  in  which  the  scribes  delighted,  viz. 
which  of  the  commandments — the  Jews  counted  613 — 
was  the  greatest  of  all.2  The  man  who  asked  this  ques- 
tion, if  we  follow  the  oldest  account  which  is  intrinsically 
the  most  consistent,8  had  no  hostile  intent,  but,  on  the 
contrary,  appears  to  have  been  in  a  receptive  mood.    Jesus 

■Ex.   3:6. 

2  Mk.    12:28-37;  Mt.   22:34-40,  46;  Lk.    10:25-28;   20:40. 
*  Lk.     10:25-28    credits    a    certain    lawyer    with    the    same    comprehensive 
summary  of  Law  and  Prophets  which  Mark  here  ascribes  to  Jesus. 


220  THE   HISTORICAL   JESUS 

in  his  answer  ignored  even  the  Decalogue  itself,  and 
declared  that  the  two  great  commandments  were  to  love 
God  supremely  and  to  love  one's  neighbor  as  one's  self. 
His  answer  had  no  savor  of  the  rabbinical  method  of 
Scripture  interpretation,  but  was  given  him  by  his  own 
deepest  experience  of  life. 

In  line  with  the  cleansing  of  the  temple  and  the  parable 
of  the  Unfaithful  Vinedressers  was  the  denunciation  of 
the  scribes,  which  also,  according  to  the  oldest  Gospel, 
belonged  to  the  same  eventful  day  with  the  preceding 
public  controversies.  This  denunciation  necessarily  im- 
plies a  depth  and  extent  of  popular  interest  in  Jesus  which 
was  regarded  by  the  adversaries  as  a  most  formidable 
barrier.  The  scribes  were  arraigned  as  proud,  avaricious 
and  hypocritical.1  It  will  be  noticed  that  nothing  was 
said  of  their  attitude  toward  him,  and  thus  the  denuncia- 
tion is  marked  off  from  that  which  was  directed  against 
the  Galilean  cities.  This  feature  of  the  words  accords 
with  the  representation  of  the  synoptic  tradition  that  Jesus 
had  not  labored  in  Jerusalem  prior  to  these  last  few  days. 

If  the  quiet  scene  of  Mk.  12:41-44,  Lk.  21:1-4  fol- 
lowed upon  the  severe  denunciation  of  the  scribes,  or 
even  occurred  on  the  same  day,  it  bears  further  evidence 
to  the  relative  security  which  Jesus  had  won  by  his  bold 
invasion  of  the  temple  and  his  victory  over  the  religious 
authorities,  and,  at  the  same  time,  shows  his  astonishing 
power  of  self-control  and  self-forgetfulness.  As  the 
storm  on  the  lake  did  not  disturb  his  serenity,  so  the 
greater  perils  of  the  present  hour  were  ignored.  He 
observed  the  act  of  a  poor  widow  who  cast  two  mites  into 
the  treasury,  he  reflected  upon  it,  then  called  his  disciples 
and  explained  to  them  its  significance;  and  he  did  these 
things  with  a  composed  and  unperturbed  mind,  though 
all  about  him  were  powerful  enemies  who  were  bent  on 
his  immediate  destruction. 

As  Jesus  left  the  temple  at  the  close  of  this  memorable 
day  a  certain  disciple — presumably  a  Galilean  and  there- 

1  Mk.  12:38-40;  Mt.  23:1-7;  Lk.  20:45-47. — Also,  if  certain  words  of  the 
Logia  were  spoken  on  this  occasion,  they  were  arraigned  as  blind  guides 
and  as  those  who  shut  the  kingdom  of  heaven  against  men  (Mt.  23:13,  23-24; 
Lk.   11:52,  42). 


FROM  THE  TRIUMPHAL  ENTRY  TO  GOLGOTHA  221 

fore  one  whom  the  glory  of  the  great  edifice  filled  with 
fresh  wonder  owing  to  the  infrequency  of  his  visits — re- 
marked on  its  magnificence.1  The  response  of  Jesus  to 
this  word  of  admiration  was  on  a  different  plane.  Not 
the  magnificence  of  the  temple,  but  its  destruction,  was 
before  his  mind.  "There  shall  not  be  left  here  one  stone 
upon  another,  which  shall  not  be  thrown  down."2  A 
natural  conclusion  was  this  concerning  a  temple  of  God 
in  which  the  Messiah  himself,  God's  unique  messenger, 
was  not  safe  from  assault. 

Later,  on  the  Mount  of  Olives,  when  perhaps  the 
company  of  disciples  had  broken  up  for  the  night,  the 
four  men  first  called  to  discipleship  asked  Jesus  privately 
to  tell  them  when  these  things  "were  to  be  and  what 
would  be  the  sign  of  their  accomplishment3 — questions 
that  were  more  curious  than  important.4  The  reply  of 
Jesus  did  not  gratify  their  curiosity — he  said  he  was  not 
able  to  do  that5 — but  it  was  of  a  practical  character.  It 
is  certain  that  the  report  of  his  words  embodies  some 
later  material,6  but  difficult  to  determine  how  much.  For 
the  present  biographical  purpose  it  is  sufficient  to  note 
two  salient  features  of  his  reply.  In  the  first  place,  it  is 
clear  that  he  warned  them  to  be  on  their  guard,  for  a 
time  of  great  tribulation  was  before  them.7  They  would 
be  hated  and  persecuted8 — a  word  spoken  to  them  once 
before — but  the  Spirit  of  God  would  aid  them  in  their 
sore  need.9  Second,  after  this  approaching  tribulation10 
but  within  the  present  generation,11  the  Son  of  Man  would 
be  seen  coming  on  the  clouds  with  power  and  great 
glory12 — an  event  to  be  ushered  in  by  the  Old  Testament 
signs  of  the  "Day  of  Jehovah."13     Because  this  consum- 

»Mk.  13:1;  Mt.  24:1;  Lk.  21:5. 
2Mk.    13:2;   Mt.   24:2;   Lk.   21  ;6. 

•  Peculiar  to  Matthew  and  doubtless  secondary  is  the  term  napovaia 
(24:3.  27.  37.  39); 

«Mk.   13:3-4;  Mt.  24:4;  Lk.  21:7. 

•Mk.  13:32;  Mt.  24:36- 

•E.g.,  Mk.   13:14. 

*Mk.   13:5;  Mt.  24:4;  Lk.  21:8. 

•Mk.   13:9,   13;  Mt  24:9;  Lk.  21:16-17. 

•Mk.  13:11;  Lk.  21:15. 

10  Mk.    13:24;   Mt.  24:29. 

"Mk.   13:30;  Mt.  24:34;  Lk.  21:33. 

"Mk.  13:26;  Mt.  24:30;  Lk.  21:27. 

"Mk.  13:24-25;  Mt.  24:29;  Lk.  21:25. 


222  THE    HISTORICAL   JESUS 

mation  was  imminent  and  uncertain  they  and  all  disciples 
should  "watch."1  It  seems  therefore  that,  though  Jesus 
disclaimed  a  knowledge  of  the  exact  time  of  these  great 
occurrences  of  the  future,  he  was  convinced  that  they 
would  fall  within  a  generation,  or,  as  he  said  on  another 
occasion  when  speaking  of  the  coming  of  the  kingdom 
with  power,2  it  would  be  while  some  of  those  present 
were  still  alive.  Now  history  records  the  destruction  of 
the  temple  some  forty  years  after  the  death  of  Jesus 
(Sept.  70  A.D.),  and  a  coming  of  the  kingdom  of  God 
with  power  long  before  that  time;3  but  of  a  subsequent 
event  or  series  of  events,  which  yet  lay  within  the  distance 
of  a  life-time  from  the  day  when  Jesus  spoke  and  which 
could  possibly  be  thought  of  as  a  fulfilment  of  the  word 
about  the  Son  of  Man  coming  on  the  clouds  with  power 
and  great  glory,  history  has  no  record.  We  here  face  an 
unsolved  problem.  That  Jesus  shared  the  views  of  his 
people  and  age,  sometimes  erroneous  views,  as  in  the  case 
of  demoniac  possession,  is  to  be  admitted.  It  is  possible 
that  he  also  held,  in  common  with  his  age,  that  there  was 
to  be  a  consummation  of  the  present  order  in  the  near 
future.  But  in  this  case  as  little  as  in  the  other  do  we 
confront  a  fact  that  in  the  slightest  degree  affects  the 
essential  claims  of  Jesus  to  be  the  revealer  of  the 
character  of  God. 

With  this  last  eventful  day  of  public  teaching  the 
oldest  Gospel  associates  yet  two  significant  incidents — 
the  anointing  of  Jesus  in  Bethany,4  and  the  enlistment  of 
Judas  in  the  service  of  the  priests.5  The  story  of  the 
anointing  was  apparently  preserved  because  of  the  words 
of  Jesus  which  it  called  forth.    Hence  it  is  not  surprising 

1  Mk.    13:32-37;  Mt  24:42;  25:13-14;  Lk.   21:36;    12:40. 

*  Mk.  9:1.  3  See  the  Book  of  Acts. 

4  Mk.  14:3-0;  Mt.  26:6-13. — Luke  omits  this  incident,  but  gives,  in  an 
earlier  connection,  a  somewhat  similar  one  (7:36-50).  Jesus  is  anointed  by 
a  woman  in  the  house  of  a  certain  Simon,  but  all  the  other  circumstances 
are  different.  Luke  was  probably  acquainted  with  Mark  14:3-9.  and  may 
have  omitted  it  because  of  its  resemblance  to  the  other  story. — The  account 
in  Jn.  12:1-11  appears  to  be  based  on  the  oldest  Gospel,  but  seriously 
modifies  it.  It  drops  Simon,  and  seems  to  put  the  incident  in  the  home  of 
Lazarus.  It  fills  out  the  blanks  left  in  the  oldest  Gospel,  and  relieves  the 
other  apostles  of  blame  by  casting  it  all  upon  Judas.  These  features  point 
to  its  secondary  character. 

6  Mk.    14:10-11;    Mt.   26:14-16;   Lk.   22:3-6. 


FROM  THE  TRIUMPHAL  ENTRY  TO  GOLGOTHA  223 

that  only  a  meagre  statement  of  the  details  of  the  event 
is  given.  Who  the  woman  was  who  anointed  the  head 
of  Jesus,  or  what  her  motive,  or  who  Simon  the  *  'leper" 
was,  are  questions  that  cannot  be  answered.  They  are, 
however,  of  no  great  importance.  And  who  were  in- 
dignant at  the  supposed  extravagance  of  using  fifty  dol- 
lars' worth  of  spikenard  on  the  hair  of  Jesus  is  a  point 
left  vague  in  the  oldest  Gospel.  It  was  very  natural  for 
a  later  generation1  to  make  Judas  the  scape-goat  to  bear 
the  blame  of  this  parsimonious  criticism,  but  evidence  for 
this  conclusion  is  wanting. 

Jesus  rebuked  those  who  murmured  at  the  woman's 
act,  and  himself  generously  defended  it.  It  was  a  "good 
work;"  it  was  preparatory  to  his  burial;  and  its  record 
should  go  as  widely  as  the  Gospel.  Moreover  the  time 
was  at  hand  when  they  could  no  more  offer  him  any 
personal  ministry  of  affection  or  honor.  Thus  it  is  mani- 
fest that  Jesus,  though  he  had  silenced  his  adversaries  in 
the  temple,  and  though  he  was  temporarily  shielded  by 
popular  favor,  was  convinced  that  his  end  was  near.  That 
he  took  occasion  to  refer  to  it  at  table  is  in  harmony  with 
repeated  utterances  of  the  last  few  weeks  and  shows  how 
important  he  felt  it  to  be  that  his  disciples  should  be  fore- 
warned of  the  approaching  tragedy. 

It  is  possible  that  this  repeated  and  heavy  announce- 
ment of  Jesus  concerning  his  immediate  future  had 
something  to  do  with  the  resolve  of  Judas  to  betray  him. 
If  that  disciple  concluded  from  what  Jesus  said  of  his 
death  that  he  could  not  be  the  Messiah — a  very  natural 
conclusion  at  that  time — then  his  mind  would  be  open  to 
suggestions  regarding  the  unwisdom  of  being  identified 
with  one  against  whom  the  leaders  of  Israel  were  arrayed 
as  one  man.  But  it  is  idle,  with  the  data  at  our  disposal, 
to  attempt  to  analyze  the  mental  process  by  which  Judas 
became  the  betrayer  of  his  Master.  How  far  back  that 
process  reached  we  cannot  tell.2     There  is  no  ground  for 

1  See  John  12:5-6. 

a  The  view  of  the  latest  Gospel  that  Jesus  knew  from  the  beginning  who 
it  was  that  should  betray  him  (6:64),  and  that,  as  early  as  the  longer 
visit  in  Capernaum,  Jesus  said  to  the  apostles,  "Did  not  I  choose  you  the 
Twelve  ana  one  of  you  is  a  devil  (6:71),"  is  simply  an  inference  from  the 
assumed  supernatural  knowledge  of  Jesus. 


224  THE    HISTORICAL   JESUS 

supposing  that  when  Jesus  and  the  Twelve  came  up  to 
Jerusalem,  Judas  had  already  contemplated  turning 
against  him.  The  fact  that  the  all-powerful  authorities 
in  Jerusalem  were  declared  enemies  of  Jesus  was  suf- 
ficiently ominous  to  set  any  disciple  to  thinking  of  his 
own  personal  safety,  and  to  bring  any  germ  of  latent 
unbelief  to  rapid  development.  According  to  the  oldest 
Gospel  Judas  was  in  touch  with  the  priests  two  days 
before  the  Passover  and  was  seeking  how  he  might 
opportunely  deliver  Jesus  to  them.1  We  can  readily 
believe  that  it  was  desired  to  dispose  of  Jesus  before  the 
great  feast.2  To  proceed  against  him  openly  at  that  time 
would  be  likely  to  produce  a  dangerous  uprising  in  his 
favor,  and  yet  to  leave  him  at  large  during  the  feast 
would  be  to  run  the  risk  of  further  strengthening  his 
cause.     Hence  the  urgent  need  of  immediate  action. 

An  apprehension  of  what  was  being  plotted  by  his  foes 
may  account  for  the  seeming  fact  that,  according  to  the 
hints  of  time  in  the  oldest  Gospel,3  Jesus  spent  the  last 
day  before  the  Passover  in  close  retirement.  This  would 
suggest  very  clearly  that  he  purposed  to  determine  in 
some  measure  the  outward  course  of  hostile  procedure 
against  him.  Whether  he  had  any  other  reason  for  wish- 
ing to  postpone  his  arrest  than  the  desire  to  keep  the 
Passover  with  his  disciples,4  we  can  only  conjecture. 

On  the  day  when  the  Jews  were  accustomed  to  kill  the 
Passover,5  that  is,  the  14th  of  the  month  Nisan,8  Jesus — 
whether  at  Bethany  or  elsewhere  cannot  be  determined 
— sent  two7  disciples  into  the  city  to  prepare  for  the  cele- 
bration of  the  feast.  There  is  an  air  of  mystery  about 
the  directions  which  Jesus  gave  to  these  men,8  which  is 
probably  to  be  explained  as  due  to  the  presence  of  Judas 

1Mk.  14:11. 

2Mk.   14:2;  Mt.  26:5;  Lk.  22.2. 

s  If  Mk.   11:20  denotes  the  next  day  after  that  of  11:12,  then  this  Gospel 
leaves  Wednesday  a  blank. 
«Lk.  22:15. 
»Mk.   14:12;  Lk.  22:7. 
0  Lev.  23:5. 

7  According  to  Lk.  22:8  these  two  disciples  were  Peter  and  John — pos- 
sibly an  inference  from  the  fact  that  these  were  the  chief  apostles.  It  is 
at  least  singular  that  Mark,  who  derived  his  facts  in  part  from  Peter, 
should  have  omitted  the  names  if  he  had  ever  heard  them  from  that  apostle. 

8  Mk.   14:13.   15;   Mt.  26:18;  Lk.  22:10,   12. 


FROM  THE  TRIUMPHAL  ENTRY  TO  GOLGOTHA  225 

and  to  the  desire  to  leave  him  ignorant  of  the  place  of 
meeting.  That  the  owner  of  the  house  to  whom  they 
were  sent  was  acquainted  with  Jesus  and  knew  how  many 
apostles  he  had  is  clearly  implied  in  the  message  to  him : 
"The  teacher  saith,  where  is  my  guest-chamber,  where  I 
shall  eat  the  Passover  with  my  disciples?"1  Surely  not 
every  householder  in  Jerusalem  would  have  known  who 
was  meant  by  "The  teacher,"  or  would  have  been  able 
and  willing  to  place  a  large  room  at  his  disposal.  There- 
fore it  appears  that  Jesus  had  some  definite  person  in 
mind,  but  was  aware  of  the  need  of  secrecy  if  he  would 
have  a  quiet  evening  for  the  supper.2 

At  evening  Jesus  with  the  Twelve  entered  Jerusalem 
to  keep  the  Passover,  but  no  single  detail  of  the  observ- 
ance has  been  preserved.3  That  which,  in  this  hour, 
impressed  itself  on  the  memory  of  the  apostles  was  quite 
separate  from  the  old  national  observance.  There  was, 
first,  the  startling  word  of  Jesus  that  one  of  the  Twelve 
would  betray  him.4  No  doubt  Jesus  expressed  himself 
in  this  general  manner  for  a  pedagogical  reason.  He 
wished  that  there  should  be  a  searching  of  heart  among 
his  disciples.  But  he  who  had  extraordinary  insight  into 
the  souls  of  men  can  hardly  have  been  unaware  of  the 
alienation  of  Judas,  and  that  it  was  he  who  was  about  to 
deliver  him  to  his  foes.  To  that  disciple  it  must  now  have 
been  plain  that  the  Master  was  convinced  of  his  dis- 
loyalty, and  yet,  by  couching  his  disclosure  in  general 
terms,  Jesus  had  spared  Judas  the  humiliation  which  he 
must  have  felt  had  he  been  designated  by  name  as  the 
traitor. 

It  is  possible — we  cannot  say  probable — that  one  motive 
which  led  Jesus  to  make  this  announcement  concerning 
his  betrayal  was  that  the  traitor,  finding  that  the  Master 
saw  through  him,  might  depart  and  thus  clear  the  spirit- 

»Mlc  14:14;  Mt  26:18;  Lk.  32:11. 

3  If  the  "young  man"  who  was  present  at  the  arrest  of  Jesus  (Mk.  14: 
51-52)  was  John  Mark,  the  author  of  the  second  Gospel,  then  it  seems 
probable  that  the  Passover  was  celebrated  by  Jesus  in  the  house  of  Mary 
the  mother  of  Mark   (Acts   12:12). 

•Unless  Lk.  22:17-18  contains  such  a  detail,  for  this  connects  the  Lord's 
Supper  with  the  passing  of  a  cup  in  the  paschal  observance. 

'Mk.   14:18;  Mt.  26:21;  Lk.  22:21. 

*5 


226  THE   HISTORICAL   JESUS 

ual  atmosphere  for  the  last  hour  of  intercourse  between 
Jesus  and  his  friends ;  and  yet  we  cannot  positively  affirm 
that  Judas  went  forth  at  this  time.  The  oldest  Gospel 
is  silent,  Luke  lets  Judas  remain  through  the  Lord's 
Supper,1  but  John  sends  him  forth  and  relates  the  very 
circumstances  of  his  departure  (13:26-30). 

The  second  unforgettable  incident  in  the  upper  room 
was  the  profoundly  personal  turn  which  Jesus  gave  to 
the  paschal  supper.  The  account  of  this  in  the  oldest 
Gospel,  because  of  its  greater  simplicity,  is  to  be  pre- 
ferred to  those  of  Matthew  and  Luke.2  According  to 
this  least  ritualistic  narrative  Jesus,  during  the  progress 
of  the  paschal  meal,3  broke  a  loaf4  of  bread  with  thanks- 
giving, and  gave  to  the  apostles  with  the  words,  "Take ; 
this  is  my  body."5  I^aterhc  gave  them  a  cup,  after  words 
of  thanksgiving,  and  they  all  drank  of  it.6  Then,  after 
they  had  drunk,  he  told  them  what  meaning  he  attached 
to  the  wine :  "This  is  my  covenant-blood  which  is  shed 
for  many."7  Finally,  in  line  with  this  word  about  cove- 
nant-blood, he  solemnly  declared  that  he  should  not  drink 
wine  again  until  he  drank  it  in  the  kingdom  of  God  ;8 
that  is  to  say,  he  announced  that  his  end  was  near,  but 
also  alluded  to  a  continuation  of  fellowship  in  the  future. 

We  recognize  that  Jesus  spoke  in  symbols,  that  bread 
and  wine  stood  for  his  body  and  his  blood.  So  much  is 
clear.  Further,  the  fact  of  his  death  is  certainly  in  the 
foreground  of  the  scene,  and  the  partaking  of  the  symbolic 
bread  and  wine  received  some  of  its  significance,  in  his 
thought,  from  that  fact.  It  is  impossible  to  dissociate 
either  symbol  from  him  or  from  his  self  sacrificing  love. 
Herein  may  lie  its  essential  meaning.  But  on  the  partic- 
ular content  of  the  symbols — if  such  there  was  in  Jesus' 
thought — and  on  their  appropriation  by  the  disciples,  the 
Master  shed  no  light. 

To  return  to  the  narrative.  We  cannot  tell  why  Jesus 
went  out  to  the  Mount  of  Olives  late  in  the  night,  though 
from  what  transpired  there  it  is  natural  to  conjecture 

*Lk.  22:21. 

'Preferred    also  to    that    of   I   Cor.    11:23-25. 

8  Mk.   14:22.  *Thin  like  our  crackers  but  larger. 

»Mk.   14:22.  «  Mk.   14:33.  T  Mk.    14:24.  8  Mk.    14.35. 


FROM  THE  TRIUMPHAL  ENTRY  TO  GOLGOTHA  227 

that  he  wished  a  degree  of  privacy  which  was  not  pos- 
sible in  the  upper  room.  His  reflections  as  they  went 
forth  from  the  city  were  full  of  sadness.  He  foresaw 
that  all  his  disciples  would  be  scattered  in  the  days  ahead,1 
but  when  he  spoke  his  thought  Peter  declared  that  he  at 
least  would  remain  loyal.2  In  this  strong  self-confidence 
Jesus  saw  the  shadow  of  Peter's  aggravated  denial.3  One 
of  his  apostles  had  already  betrayed  him,  another  was 
soon  to  deny  him,  and  all  the  rest  were  to  "stumble." 
With  such  thoughts  he  came  to  Gethsemane  across  the 
brook  Kedron,  not  far  from  the  city. 

Of  what  transpired  in  that  sacred  spot  we  have  glimpses 
only,  for  the  three  disciples  who  were  near  enough  to 
Jesus  to  hear  his  words4  repeatedly  fell  asleep.5  Yet  the 
words  which  one  and  another  heard  before  sleep  had 
overcome  them,  or  in  later  intervals  when  Jesus  aroused 
them,  may  give  us  an  understanding  of  the  nature  of  his 
experience. 

The  time  spent  in  Gethsemane,  whether  short  or  long,6 
was  spent  by  Jesus  chiefly  in  prayer,  though  the  oldest 
Gospel  seems  to  have  a  trace  of  an  interval  of  quiet 
between  the  prayer  and  the  arrest.7  One  word  that  fell 
from  the  lips  of  Jesus  in  Gethsemane,  perhaps  fell  from 
his  lips  many  times  in  that  hour,  has  come  to  us  un- 
changed— the  Aramaic  word  "Abba."  The  disciples 
heard  him  calling  upon  the  Father,  as  he  had  taught  them 
to  do.  They  heard  him  make  supplication  that  a  certain 
"cup"  might  pass  from  him.8  This  was  his  sole  petition, 
so  far  as  we  know,  though  not  all  of  his  prayer,  for  the 
words  "Not  what  I  will  but  what  thou  wilt"  may  have 
been  as  vital  a  part  of  his  communion  with  the  Father, 
as  profoundly  involving  both  heart  and  will,  as  was  the 
petition  for  the  passing  of  the  "cup."    As  to  this  "cup," 

1  Mk.  14:27;  Mt.  26:31. 

•  Mk.   14;  29;   Mt.  26:33;  Lk.   22:33. 

•  Mk.  14:30;  Mt.  26:34;  Lk.  22:34. 
•Mk.    14:33;   Mt   26:37. 

•  Mk.   14:37,  40;  Mt.  26:40,  43;  Lk.  22:45. 

•A  period  of  an  hour  is  perhaps  the  least  that  would  satisfy  the  con- 
ditions of  the   narrative. 

1  It  seems  necessary  to  assume  an  interval  between  the  words  "Sleep  on 
now  and  take  your  rest,"  and,  "Arise,  let  us  be  going"    (Mk.   14:41-42). 

•  Mk.    14:36;   Mt.  26:39;   Lk.   22:42. 


228  THE   HISTORICAL   JESUS 

the  situation  suggests  that  the  symbol  has  the  same  mean- 
ing here  as  in  Mk.  10:38,  where  it  apparently  refers  to 
his  death  at  the  hands  of  the  religious  authorities  in  Israel. 
This  petition  implies  that  it  seemed  to  Jesus  possible  for 
his  Father,  who  has  all  power,  to  lead  him  to  the  goal  of 
his  Messianic  labor  by  some  other  way  than  that  of  the 
shameful  death  which  he  saw  just  ahead.  This  thought 
is  doubtless  in  contrast  with  that  of  the  past  weeks,  even 
with  that  which  was  expressed  in  the  upper  room.  Again 
and  again  Jesus  had  anticipated  a  violent  death,  and  had 
spoken  of  it  calmly,  as  in  some  sense  a  necessary  and 
unavoidable  event  in  his  career.  Now  he  prayed  that  the 
"cup"  might  pass  away  from  him.  The  contrast  is  great, 
yet  not  wholly  inexplicable.  Jesus  realized  now.  as  he 
could  not  have  done  before,  the  loneliness  and  the  horror 
of  his  fate.  The  nearest  of  his  disciples  could  not  watch 
with  him  one  hour.  The  bravest  of  his  friends  was 
about  to  deny  him.  The  religious  leaders  of  his  people 
stood  ready  to  treat  him  as  accursed.  And  all  this  was 
the  return  which  men  made  for  the  most  unselfish  min- 
istry and  the  most  divine  religious  ideals.  That  the 
sensitive  spirit  of  Jesus  was  overwhelmed  and  prayed 
that  this  "cup''  might  pass  is  the  testimony  of  the  oldest 
Gospel,  nor  does  it  seem  unworthy  of  the  greatest  of  all 
God's  messengers.  When,  however,  Jesus  realized  that 
it  was  his  Father's  will  that  the  cup  should  not  pass,  he 
calmly  awaited  the  approach  of  his  enemies. 

The  seizure  of  Jesus  was  made  by  an  armed  band  sent 
by  the  priests  and  led  by  Judas.1  As  it  was  carried  out 
in  the  dead  of  night,  and  as  Judas  knew  that  Jesus  would 
offer  no  resistance,  it  is  not  likely  that  the  "multitude" 
(  oxAos )  who  came  to  take  him  was  very  large.2  There 
was  no  attempt  to  seize  the  disciples.  Even  that  one  who 
wounded  a  servant  of  the  high  priest  was  allowed  to 
escape.3     The   young  man  of  whom   the  oldest   Gospel 

1  Mk.   14:43;  Mt  26:47;  Lk.   22:47. 

2  There  is  no  occasion  for  the  serious  modification  of  the  synoptic  tradi- 
tion  by   adopting  Jn.    18:2. 

8  According  to  the  oldest  Gospel  (Mk.  14:47),  the  person  who  drew  a 
sword  was  one  of  those  who  "stood  by."  It  is  not  said  that  he  was  a 
disciple,  nor  is  it  necessary  to  assume  that  he  was.  It  might  have  been  the 
young  man  of  vs.   51,  or  some   other  like  him.     If  it  had  been  an  apostle, 


FROM  THE  TRIUMPHAL  ENTRY  TO  GOLGOTHA  229 

speaks,1  who  appears  to  have  followed  the  company  even 
after  the  disciples  had  fled,2  was  laid  hold  upon  indeed, 
but  when  he  loosed  himself  from  his  captors  and  fled,  no 
further  notice  was  taken  of  him.  It  is  clear  that  the 
authorities  had  no  fear  of  the  followers  of  Jesus. 

The  fact  that  Judas  on  coming  up  kissed  Jesus3  was 
regarded  by  the  disciples  as  a  preconcerted  signal  by 
which  Jesus  should  be  pointed  out  to  those  who  had 
come  to  seize  him — another  indication  that  he  was  not 
well  known  by  sight  to  the  temple  police.  Though  Jesus 
offered  no  forcible  resistance  to  seizure,  he  protested 
against  its  method,  saying,  "Are  ye  come  out  as  against 
a  robber  with  swords  and  staves  to  seize  me  ?"4  He  who 
had  been  allowed  to  teach  in  the  temple  unmolested  is  now 
seized  as  though  he  were  a  robber.  To  assume  that  he 
would  fight  for  his  freedom  was  utterly  to  mistake  the 
spirit  of  his  teaching,  and  hence  he  spoke  the  words  of 
protest. 

From  the  hour  of  the  arrest  of  Jesus  the  details  of  his 
treatment  are  more  variously  given  in  the  various  Gospels 
than  are  the  details  of  the  preceding  hours  and  days. 
This  is  not  strange,  for  the  disciples  had  fled  from  Jesus 
in  Gethsemane.  Peter  followed  into  the  court  of  the 
high  priest,5  and  was  perhaps  near  enough  to  hear  what 
was  said  in  the  trial  of  Jesus ;  but  he  himself  was  on  trial, 
and  not  in  a  condition  to  take  accurate  note  of  what 
transpired  in  the  high  priest's  court.6  Knowledge  of  that 
trial  must  therefore  have  come  from  persons — to  us  un- 
known— who  were  present,  possibly  from  some  one  like 
Joseph  of  Arimathea7  who  was  even  then  friendly  toward 

and  indeed  the  chief  of  the  apostles,  as  the  latest  Gospel  assumes  (Jn.  18: 
10),  it  would  be  strange  that  the  synoptic  tradition  knew  nothing  of  it. 
Moreover  it  is  not  easy  to  believe  that  Jesus  allowed  one  of  his  apostles  to 
go  armed.  Luke  22:35-38,  taken  literally,  might  appear  to  justify  the 
disciples  in  taking  weapons  as  they  went  to  Gethsemane,  but  we  cannot 
understand  how  Jesus  would  have  allowed  them  to  act  on  a  mistaken  inter- 
pretation of  his  word. 

1  Mk.    14:51-52. 

2  Mk.   14:50. 
Mk.  14:44-45;  Mt.  26:48-49;  Lk.  22:47-48. 


8  Mk.  14:44-45;  Mt.  26:48-49;  Lk.  22:4 
*  Mk.   14:48;  Mt.  26:55;  Lk.  22:52. 
•Mk.   14:54;  Mt.  26:58;  Lk.  22:54-55. 


•  If  John  also  was  present   (18:15),  it  is  strange  that  he  was  not  chal- 
lenged as  well  as  Peter. 
?Mk.  15:43-46. 


23O  THE   HISTORICAL   JESUS 

Jesus,  possibly  also  from  some  one  who,  though  not  at 
that  time  friendly,  afterward  became  a  disciple.  Of  the 
more  public  trial  before  the  Roman  procurator  and  of  the 
execution  there  may  well  have  been  friendly  witnesses, 
if  no  one  of  the  Twelve.  But  despite  the  numerous  dis- 
agreements in  the  reports  of  the  last  hours  of  the  life  of 
Jesus — a  fact  which  should  induce  great  caution  in  the 
handling  of  separate  details — the  main  steps  in  the  trial 
and  execution  are  ascertainable.  Here  as  in  many  other 
places  the  oldest  Gospel  narrative  is  preeminent  by  reason 
of  its  simplicity  and  inner  consistency.  To  this  then  we 
must  give  the  greatest  weight. 

It  was  still  night1  when  Jesus  was  taken  to  the  high- 
priest,2  and  yet  the  different  elements  which  constituted 
the  sanhedrin  appear  to  have  been  represented  in  the  body 
which  was  gathered  there.3  This  fact  indicates  that  some 
considerable  time  had  elapsed  since  Judas  left  the  upper 
room. 

There  were,  according  to  Mark,  certain  witnesses  who 
appeared  against  Jesus,4  and  one  remarkable  piece  of 
testimony — which   is   characterized    in    the   narrative   as 

,  false5 — is  given,  to  wit,  that  Jesus  had  said,  "I  will 
destroy  this  temple  that  is  made  with  hands,  and  in  three 
days  I  will  build  another  made  without  hands."6  The 
oldest  narrative  in  its  representation  that  the  sanhedrin 
heard  various  witnesses  and  yet  refused  to  accept  their 

I  testimony  as  sufficient  certainly  throws  a  favorable  light 
upon  that  body.  But  it  is  of  small  account  to  know  what 
was  said  against  Jesus  in  the  sanhedrin,  for  it  is  clear  | 

(that  he  was  at  length  judged  worthy  of  death  simply  and* 

(solely  on  the  strength  of  his  own  confession.  The  high- 
priest  asked  him  if  he  was  the  Christ,  and  he  replied 
affirmatively,  adding  a  prophetic  word  expressive  of  con- 
fidence in  the  triumphant  outcome  of  his  mission.7    This 


1  Luke  (22:66)  postpones  the  formal  gathering  until  morning,  perhaps 
influenced  thereto  by  Mk.    15:1. 

-  Mk.    14:72;    15:1.  8Mk.   14:53;   ML  26:57-  *Mk.    14:56-5?. 

B  Yet  the  latest  narrative  (Jn.  2:19)  has  something  quite  similar  which 
is  given  as  historical. 

a  Mk.    14:58. 

7  Mk.  14:61-62;  ML  26:63-64. — Luke's  version  of  this  incident  (22:67-70) 
departs  widely  from  that  of  Mark.     The  critical  question  is  not  put  by  the 


FROM  THE  TRIUMPHAL  ENTRY  TO  GOLGOTHA         23 1 

dramatic  moment  when  Jesus  and  the  highpriest  faced 
each  other  and  exchanged  these  solemn  words  would  not 
have  been  easily  forgotten  by  any  one  present,  nor  the  1 
ffact  that  the  confession  of  Jesus  was  held  to  be  justly! 
(decisive  against  him.  It  was  blasphemy,  and  for  blas- 
phemy he  was  condemned  to  death.1  If  there  was  any 
favorable  sentiment  among  the  judges,  it  did  not  mani- 
fest itself,  and  Jesus  was  immediately  treated  as  a  con- 
demned and  hated  criminal.2 

It  is  not  for  us  summarily  to  condemn  the  Supreme 
Court  of  Israel  because  of  this  verdict  against  Jesus. 
/Nineteen  centuries  of  Christian  history  show  indeed  that/ 
it  was  essentially  wrong,  but  do  not  prove  that  it  wasj 
technically  invalid,  or  that  the  judges  were  wholly  andt 
wilfully  blind  to  the  truth.  From  the  orthodox  point  of 
view  the  case  against  Jesus  appeared  to  be  strong.  He 
had  come  forward  as  a  teacher,  and  had  even  assumed 
authority  unsparingly  to  criticize  the  religious  leaders, 
and  yet  he  had  no  rabbinical  credentials  to  show ;  he  had 
allowed  himself  to  be  hailed  as  the  bringer  of  the  Davidic 
kingdom,  though  he  was  unacknowledged  by  the  head  of 
God's  people,  and  had  no  other  support  than  that  of  a 
few  Galilean  rustics ;  and  now,  though  a  helpless  prisoner, 
without  a  shred  of  Messianic  equipment,  as  that  was 
popularly  conceived,  he  had  dared  to  claim  to  be  the 
supreme  messenger  of  God !  That  it  must  have  appeared 
blasphemous  in  the  judgment  of  the  court  for  such  an 
individual  to  arrogate  to  himself  the  sublime  Messianic 
mission  one  may  readily  admit.  Jesus'  conception  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  was,  at  least  for  the  present,  unintel- 
ligible both  to  the  leaders  and  to  the  people. 

The  episode  of  Peter's  denial8  must  be  looked  at  against 
the  background  of  the  completed  trial  and  condemnation 
of  Jesus.  The  fall  of  his  leader  may  have  heightened 
Peter's  sense  of  his  own  peril,  and  more  than  that,  it  may 

high  priest  but  by  all  the  sanhedrists;  Jesus  does  not  answer  frankly  and 
clearly,  but  vaguely;  and  instead  of  using  the  symbolism  of  Dan.  7:13,  as 
is  done  in  Mark,  we  have  this  very  different  thought:  "From  henceforth 
shall  the  Son  of  Man  be  seated  at  the  right  hand  of  God." 

'Mk.  14:63-64;  Mt.  26:65-66;  Lk.  22:71. 

»Mk.  14:65;  Mt.  26:67-68;  Lk.  22:63-65. 

"Mk.   14:66-72;  Mt.  26:69-75;  Lk.  22:56-62. 


232  THE   HISTORICAL   JESUS 

well  have  shattered,  temporarily,  his  faith  in  that  leader, 
for  it  is  altogether  probable  that  the  disciples  continued 
to  the  last  to  hope  that,  in  the  hour  of  the  Messiah's 
utmost  extremity,  God  would  wondrously  intervene  on 
his  behalf.  In  these  circumstances  Peter  repeatedly 
denied  that  he  was  a  disciple,  and  when  the  charge  was 
finally  backed  up  with  the  obvious  fact  that  he  was  a 
Galilean,  he  was  driven  to  use  oaths  in  confirmation  of 
his  denial.  Yet  his  peril  was  more  apparent  than  real, 
for  he  was  allowed  to  go  forth  from  the  place  of  trial 
whithersoever  he  would. 

In  the  early  morning  the  sanhedrists,  after  a  consulta- 
tion that  probably  concerned  the  method  in  which  they 
should  seek  Pilate's  sanction  of  their  verdict,  took  Jesus 
to  the  Roman  Governor.1 

We  must  suppose  that  the  charge  which  they  brought 
against  him  was  that  he  claimed  to  be  the  king  of  the 
Jews,  for  Pilate's  question  implies  this.2  In  a  certain 
sense  this  charge  was  valid,  for  Jesus  had  said  that  he 
was  the  Christ,  and  the  Qirist  was  universally  thought  of 
as  a  king;  yet  as  it  must  have  been  understood  by  the 
Roman,  who  cannot  be  credited  with  any  knowledge  of 
Jesus'  own  conception  of  Messiahship,  it  undoubtedly 
conveyed  a  wrong  impression.  He  must  have  thought  of 
Jesus  as  a  political  pretender,  and  when  Jesus,  in  response 
to  his  question,  "Art  thou  the  king  of  the  Jews?"  replied 
in  the  affirmative,  he  probably  regarded  him  as  a  harmless 
fanatic.  It  is  obvious  at  any  rate  that  he  saw  nothing 
serious  in  the  accusation. 

It  appears  that  the  narrative  of  the  oldest  Gospel  is  here 
to  be  supplemented  from  Luke,  who  reports  that  Pilate, 
on  hearing  that  Jesus  was  a  Galilean,  sent  him  to  Herod.8 
This  incident  may  have  been  omitted  as  not  materially 
affecting  the   story.     It  certainly  accords  with   Pilate's 

I  *  Mk.  15:1;  Mt  27:1. — Since  Judea  was  a  Roman  province  only  tke 
'  procurator  had  the  power  of  life  and  death. — The  great  divergence  between 
Matthew  and  Luke  (Mt.  27:3-10,  Acts  1:18-20)  in  regard  to  the  fate  of 
Judas,  which  Matthew  introduces  at  this  point  in  his  narrative,  is  unfavor- 
able to  the  supposition  that  there  was  any  certain  knowledge  on  the  subject 
at  the  time  of  the  composition  of  these  writings.  Matthew's  story  looks  as 
though  determined  more  or  less  completely  by  Zech.  11:12-13. 
2  Mk.   15:.?;   Mt.  27:11;  Lk.  23:3.  »Lk.  23:5-7. 


FROM  THE  TRIUMPHAL  ENTRY  TO  GOLGOTHA  233 

manifest  unwillingness  to  grant  the  request  of  the  Jews 
that  he  should  have  sought  to  shift  the  responsibility 
of  judgment  to  Herod's  shoulders.  Why  Herod  refused 
to  dispose  of  the  case,  as  he  had  done  with  that  of 
the  Baptist,  we  are  not  told.  Had  he  done  so,  the  axe 
instead  of  the  cross,  might  have  been  the  symbol  of 
Christianity ! 

When  Jesus  was  brought  back  to  the  Roman  bar,  Pilate, 
either  in  response  to  a  request  of  the  populace  that  he 
should  release  unto  them  a  prisoner  according  to  custom,1 
or  of  his  own  motion,2  proposed  to  set  him  free.8  This  was 
a  clever  proposition,  especially  so  if  Pilate  had  detected  any 
signs  of  popular  sympathy  for  Jesus,  but  it  was  counter- 
acted by  the  priests  who  were  evidently  present  in  such 
numbers  that  they  controlled  the  crowd.4  When  after- 
ward Pilate  sounded  the  feeling  of  those  present  in  regard 
to  the  popular  will,  there  was  a  cry  that  Jesus  should  be  } 
^crucified,  that  is,  be  dealt  with  as  one  who  was  guilty  in  ! 
Jthe  eye  of  the  Roman  law,5  and  when  Pilate,  who  had 
some  sense  of  justice  in  his  bosom,  asked  what  evil  Jesus 
had  done,  he  was  answered  with  the  same  fanatical  cry.6 
Then,  as  he  feared  a  tumult  more  than  he  cared  to  secure 

I  justice  for  the  prisoner,  he  delivered  him  to  be  crucified.7 
His  technical  justification  of  the  act  must  have  been  that  1 
Jesus  claimed  to  be  the  king  of  the  Jews.  This  was  the 
indictment  placed  upon  the  cross.8  The  soldiers  to  whom 
Jesus  was  delivered — whether  Italian  or  Syrian  we  do  not 
know — seem  to  have  shared  the  very  general  popular 
feeling  of  ill-will  against  Jews,  for  while  making  prepara- 
tion, in  the  praetorium,  for  the  execution,  they  are 
reported  to  have  treated  him  cruelly.9 
At    the    third    hour    of    the    morning,10    the    soldiers 

*Mk.   15:6-8.  4MTc.  15:11;  Mt.  27:20. 

*  Mt.  27:17;  Lk.  23:16-18.  •  Mk.   15:13;  Mt.  27:22;  Lk.  23:21.    • 
»  Mk.   15:9.  •  Mk.  15:14;  Mt.  27:23;  Lk.  23:23. 

7  The  incident  of  Pilate's  wife  (Mt.  27:19)  and  the  washing  of  his  hands 
before  the  multitude  (27:24)  are  both  designed  to  emphasize  the  innocence 
of  Tesus.     It  is  difficult  to  regard  them  as  containing  any  historical  element. 

*Mk.   15:26;   Mt.  27:37;  Lk.  23:38. 

•  Mk.   15:16-20;   Mt.  27:27-31. 

10  Mk.  15:25. — In  view  of  our  ignorance  as  to  the  time  needful  for  the 
various  incidents  between  the  arrest  of  Jesus  and  his  crucifixion,  and  the 
indefiniteness  of  wp*i  in  Mk.  15:1,  it  seems  unwarrantable  to  say  that  the 
third  hour  is  intrinsically  improbable. 


234  THE    HISTORICAL    JESUS 

appointed  to  the  task1  took  Jesus  out  of  the  city,2  on  the 
way  forcing  an  African  Jew  by  the  name  of  Simon  to 
carry  his  cross,3  and  at  a  place  called  Golgotha  ("skull"),4 
in  a  manner  that  is  fortunately  not  described  and  on  a 
cross  whose  shape  is  not  determinable,5  after  they  had 
mercifully  offered  him  a  narcotic  which  he  did  not  re- 
ceive,0 they  executed  him,  and  with  him  two  robbers.7 

The  garments  of  Jesus  were  divided  among  the  soldiers 
with  the  casting  of  lots8 — an  evidence  that  they  were  con- 
sidered to  have  some  intrinsic  value,  for  these  foreign 
soldiers  would  not  have  prized  them  for  any  sentimental 
reason. 

There  is  no  trace  in  the  oldest  Gospel  that  any  one  of 
the  apostles  witnessed  the  crucifixion  of  their  Master,9 
but  certain  women  are  said  to  have  beheld  it  from  afar.10 
We  are  told  that  the  hatred  of  his  foes  followed  him  to 
the  cross  and  there  sought  to  add  to  his  torments,  and  that 
even  those  who  hung  in  agony  beside  him  railed  on  him.11 

In  the  middle  of  the  afternoon  the  only  words  which 
fell  from  the  lips  of  the  crucified,  according  to  the  oldest 
Gospel,12  were  spoken,  being  the  first  words  of  Ps.  22: 
"My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me?"  The 
agony  which  could  have  wrung  from  the  heart  of  Jesus 
this  cry  of  utter  loneliness  is  unimaginable.  The  con- 
ception of  the  character  of  God  which  Jesus  has  done  the 

'The  number  can   hardly   have  been  as  small  as   four    (Jn.    19:23)   since 
there  were  three  prisoners  to  be  executed. 
2  Mk.    15:20;   Mt.   27:32. 
8  Mk.   15:21;  Mt.  27:32;  Lk.  23:26. 
«  Mk.    15:22. 

6  The  statement  of  Mt.  27:37,  that  the  judicial  charge  was  placed  over 
the  head  of  Jesus,  shows  that  in  the  thought  of  its  author  the  upright  beam 
t  xtended   somewhat   higher  than   the   body   which   was  affixed  to   it. 

8  Mk.   15:27;  Mt.  27:38;  Lk.  23:32. 

7  Mk.    15:27. 
"  Mk.   15:24. 

"The  situation  in  Jn.  19:26-27  is  at  variance  with  the  oldest  Gospel 
(Mk.  15:40);  Jn.  19:28-29  can  not  be  held  by  the  side  of  Mk.  15:34-36; 
and  Jn.    19:30   is  hardly  in  accord   with    Mk.    15:37   or   with   Lk.   23:46. 

10  Mk.   15:40-41;   Mt.  27:55-56;   Lk.  23:49. 

11  Mk.    15:29-32;    Mt.   27:39-44:   Lk.   23.3S-37- 

12  Mk.  i5:34-Lk.  23:34  is  double-bracketed  by  Westcott  and  Hort  as  an 
early  interpolation;  23:39-43,  in  view  of  the  oldest  Gospel  (Mk.  15:32), 
must  apparently  be  regarded  as  of  late  origin;  and  23:46,  a  modification  of 
Ps.  31:5.  takes  the  place  in  this  Gospel  which  is  held  in  the  oldest  narra- 
tive by  the  quotation  from  Ps.  22:1 — a  fact  that  seems  to  require  a  choice 
between  the  two  utterances,  and  if  this  be  so,  the  choice  must  be  for  the 
words  of  the  oldest  Gospel. 


FROM  THE  TRIUMPHAL  ENTRY  TO  GOLGOTHA  235 

most  to  establish  in  the  human  heart  forbids  our  think- 
ing that  the  Father  had  in  any  sense  forsaken  him,  yea 
rather  requires  us  to  believe  that  he  looked  on  Jesus 
with  immeasurable  love  and  compassion,  and  that  if  he 
ever  arbitrarily  departed  from  his  divinely  ordered 
modes  of  working,  he  would  here  have  intervened  with 
a  miracle  to  deliver  from  agony  the  one  pure  spirit  of 
earth. 

The  Aramaic  words  of  Jesus  caught  the  ear  of  some 
Jewish  onlookers  who  were  more  familiar  with  apocalyptic 
dreams  than  with  the  text  of  Scripture,  and  who  there- 
fore thought  that  Jesus  was  calling  on  Elijah  for  help  ;x 
and  when  some  one,  moved  with  pity  by  the  sufferings  of 
Jesus,  pressed  a  sponge  of  strong  wine  to  his  lips,  those 
who  thought  he  was  calling  for  Elijah  interfered,  saying, 
"Wait:  let  us  see  whether  Elijah  comes  to  take  him 
down."2  But  the  end  was  at  hand,  and  with  a  loud  cry 
— whether  voluntary  or  involuntary  we  do  not  know — 
Jesus  expired.8 

According  to  the  oldest  Gospel,  which  puts  the  death  of 
Jesus  in  the  middle  of  the  afternoon,  his  lifeless  body 
hung  upon  the  cross  several  hours,  for  not  until  even- 
ing was  it  taken  down.4  Then  a  stranger  appeared  on 
the  scene,  one  Joseph  of  Arimathea,  an  honorable  coun-l 
cillor,6  and  he  boldly  went  to  Pilate  and  asked  for  the 
body  of  Jesus.  The  act  required  some  boldness,  for  it 
identified  the  doer  with  what  appeared  to  be  a  lost 
cause,  and  affixed  to  him  a  social  stigma,  for  Jesus  had 
been  put  to  death  by  the  leading  priests  and  scribes. 
Where  the  apostles  were  in  this  hour  of  opportunity  we 
do  not  know.  Some  of  them  at  least  were  potential 
heroes,  as  later  history  shows,  but  their  failure  to  care 
for  the  body  of  their  Master  was  very  human  and 
unheroic. 

So  the  body  of  Jesus  was  taken  in  charge  by  a  charitable 
stranger  and  placed  in  a  rock-tomb.6     Where  this  tomb 

1  Mk.  15:34-35;  Mt.  27:46-47- 

2  Wc  follow  here  the  view  of  Mt.  27:48-49. 
*Mk.   15:37;  Mt.  27:50;  Lk.  23:46. 

4  Mk.    15:42;  Mt.  27:57;  Lk.  23:54. 

•Mk.  15:43;  Mt.  27:57;  Lk.  23:50.  P  Mk.   15:46- 


236  THE   HISTORICAL   JESUS 

was  we  do  not  know,1  and  whether  it  belonged  to  Joseph 
the  oldest  Gospel  does  not  say.  Two  women — Mary 
Magdalene  and  Mary  the  mother  of  Joses2 — beheld  where 
the  body  was  laid.  They  therefore  form  the  connecting 
link  between  the  earthly  life  of  Jesus  and  that  mysterious 
forty-day  period  between  the  Resurrection  and  the 
Ascension,  which  still  furnishes  Christian  thought  with 
some  difficult  problems. 

But  the  career  of  Jesus  as  a  character  of  history 
terminated  at  an  unknown  tomb  near  Jerusalem.  Here 
therefore  this  part  of  our  study  ends. 

1  The  representation  of  the  latest  Gospel  appears  to  be  idealized  through- 
out (Jn.  10:38-42).  There  the  body  is  not  buried  hastily,  and  merely 
enswathed  in  linen  wrapping,  but  with  all  due  regard  to  custom,  in  an 
elaborate  and  expensive  manner.  Moreover  the  tomb  is  new  and  unde- 
fined by  contact  with  a  dead  body. 

3Mk.   is  147. 


PART  HI 
THE  LEGENDARY  JESUS 


CHAPTER  I 
LEGENDS  OF  THE  BIRTH  AND  INFANCY  OF  JESUS 

The  material  of  Matthew's  story  of  the  birth  of  Jesus 
may  be  conveniently  described  under  three  heads — the 
Genealogy,  Joseph's  acceptance  of  Mary  when  her  con- 
dition was  known,  and  the  visit  of  the  Magi  with  its 
consequences  in  the  massacre  of  the  children  of  Bethlehem 
and  the  flight  of  Joseph  with  his  family  into  Egypt. 

The  form  of  the  Genealogy1  is  obviously  artificial — 
fourteen  generations  from  Abraham  to  David,  again  the 
same  number  from  David  to  the  Babylonian  captivity 
(a  period  about  half  as  long  as  the  preceding),  and 
finally  fourteen  more  from  that  event  to  Christ.  That 
the  generations  are  not  all  enumerated  is  seen,  for  ex- 
ample, in  the  fact  that  the  writer  passes  from  Jehoram 
directly  to  Uzziah,2  thus  omitting  three  generations — 
Ahaziah,  Jehoash  and  Amaziah.  The  purpose  of  this 
Genealogy  is  to  show  that  Jesus  was  sprung  from  Davidic 
stock,  and  so  fulfilled  the  prevailing  expectation  in  regard 
to  the  coming  Deliverer.  He  is  not  only  sprung  from 
David,  but  like  him  he  stands  at  the  apex  of  a  long  series 
of  generations.  Not  otherwise  can  we  explain  the  arti- 
ficial arrangement  which  sets  Jesus  over  against  David 
as  the  last  of  a  series  of  fourteen.  That  the  purpose  of 
the  Genealogy  was  thus  doctrinal  rather  than  historical  is 
confirmed  in  a  measure  by  the  fact  that  the  first  Gospel 
shows  a  fondness  for  the  title  "Son  of  David."3 

The  second  section  of  Matthew's  story  of  the  nativity 
of  Jesus  centers  in  Joseph's  acceptance  of  his  betrothed 
after  her  condition  had  become  known  to  him.  The 
supernatural  conception  of  Jesus  is  the  great  assertion  of 

«Mt  1:1-17. 

*Mt.   1:8. 

•Peculiar  to  it  are  the  following  instances:  9:27;  12:23;  15:22;  21:9,  15. 

239 


240  THE   LEGENDARY   JESUS 

these  verses,1  but  it  is  regarded  from  the  point  of  view  of 
Joseph,  and  as  a  fact  of  a  somewhat  distant  past.  Joseph 
believed,  at  first,  that  his  betrothed  had  been  unfaithful 
to  him.  While  in  this  state  of  mind  he  dreamed,  and  in 
his  dream  he  heard  from  the  lips  of  an  angel  that  the 
condition  of  Mary  was  of  supernatural  origin.  It  was 
due  to  the  Spirit  of  God.  He  was  also  informed  that  the 
child  was  to  deliver  the  people  from  their  sins.  Con- 
vinced by  this  dream,  Joseph  took  his  betrothed  to  his 
home.  But  before  narrating  this  result  the  writer  says 
that  the  condition  of  Mary,  and  the  mission  of  her  child, 
were  a  fulfilment  of  the  prophet's  words  :2 
"Behold,  the  virgin  shall  be  with  child,  and  shall  bring 
forth  a  son, 
And  they  shall  call  his  name  Immanuel." 
Here  is  manifest  the  purpose  of  this  section,  which  is  to 
show  that  the  birth  of  Jesus  without  a  human  father  was 
what  had  been  foretold. 

The  third  section  of  Matthew's  story8  consists  of  the 
visit  of  the  Magi  together  with  two  widely  diverse  conse- 
quences of  that  visit.  The  time  of  the  visit  of  the  Magi 
is  roughly  indicated  as  less  than  two  years  after  the  birth 
of  Jesus.  The  author  lets  Herod  inquire  of  the  Magi  at 
what  time  the  star  of  the  new  king  appeared,4  and  then 
says  that  Herod,  in  order  to  destroy  the  child,  slew  all 
the  male  children  in  Bethlehem  and  its  vicinity  from 
two  years  old  and  under,  according  to  the  time  which  he 
had  carefully  learned  of  the  wise  men.5  It  is  assumed 
by  Herod  that  the  star  appeared  at  the  same  time  that 
Jesus  was  born,  but  there  is  no  indication  how  long  the 
journey  of  the  Magi  had  been,  and  it  is  left  uncertain 
whether  they  started  immediately  on  the  star's  appearance. 
It  is  in  this  section  regarding  the  Magi  that  the  nar- 
rative first  mentions  the  place  of  Jesus'  birth.  This  was 
unknown  to  the  seekers  from  the  East.  The  star  which 
they  had  seen  told  them  only  that  the  king  of  the  Jews 
was  born.  Then  they  journeyed  to  the  capital,  and 
there  sought  more  specific  information.     Herod  obtained 

*Mt.   1:18-25.  'Is.  7:14.  sMt.   2. 

«Mt.  2:7.  »Mt  2:16. 


LEGENDS  OF  BIRTH  AND  INFANCY  OF  JESUS  24 1 

this  information  for  them  from  the  highest  rabbinical 
authorities,  who  based  their  answer  on  Micah  5  :2,  and 
then  he  sent  them  to  Bethlehem,  the  town  which  the 
scribes  and  priests  had  designated,  leaving  them  to  ascer- 
tain for  themselves  the  exact  location  of  the  child.  Just 
at  this  juncture,  to  their  glad  surprise,  the  star  again 
appeared  to  them  and  guided  them  to  the  house  which 
they  sought.  They  presented  their  gifts  and  homage, 
and  would  have  returned  to  Herod  with  the  information 
which  he  desired  had  they  not  received  warning  in  a 
dream,  which  led  them  to  take  another  route.1  The 
obvious  purpose  of  this  section  is  to  glorify  the  birth  of 
Jesus. 

The  visit  of  the  Magi  had  two  important  consequences. 
In  the  first  place,  it  brought  destruction  upon  the  male 
children  of  Bethlehem  and  its  vicinity,2  for  Herod,  who 
had  planned  to  get  possession  of  the  new-born  king  with 
the  aid  of  the  Magi,  thought  he  could  accomplish  his  fell 
design  in  spite  of  their  refusal  to  aid  him.  If  he  could 
not  destroy  one  child  by  itself,  he  yet  would  destroy  it  by 
destroying  all.  And  in  this  deed  of  blood  was  fulfilled, 
the  writer  tells  us,  the  word  of  Jeremiah  (31 115)  : 
"A  voice  was  heard  in  Ramah, 

Weeping  and  great  mourning, 

Rachel  weeping  for  her  children ; 

And  she  would  not  be  comforted,  because  they  are  not." 
The  other  consequence,  though  not  tragic,  was  most 
noteworthy.  Joseph  was  warned  of  Herod's  design  and 
was  commanded  to  flee  into  Egypt  with  the  child  and  its 
mother.8  He  was  also  commanded  to  remain  in  Egypt 
until  the  heavenly  messenger  should  give  him  further 
direction  as  to  his  course. 

Thus  warned,  Joseph  left  Bethlehem  by  night,  and  fled 
into  Egypt,  where  he  remained  until  the  death  of  Herod. 
The  flight  into  Egypt  made  it  possible,  the  writer  says, 
that  the  prophet's  word4  should  be  fulfilled,  "Out  of 
Egypt  did  I  call  my  son." 
Then,  after  narrating  the  bloody  deed  of  Herod  and 

»Mt.  2:1a.  *Mt.  2:13. 

»Mt.  2:16.  4Ho8.  list. 

16 


242  THE    LEGENDARY    JESUS 

Herod's  own  death,  the  writer  tells  how  Joseph  returned 
to  the  land  of  Israel,  and  how,  fearing  to  go  into  Judea 
where  Archelaus  was  reigning  in  his  father's  stead,  and 
being  instructed  in  a  dream,  he  withdrew  into  Galilee, 
and  settled  in  a  city  called  Nazareth.  This  move  also  was 
to  the  end  that  what  was  spoken  by  the  prophets  might  be 
fulfilled  that  he  should  be  called  a  "Nazarene."1 

Such,  in  brief  statement,  is  Matthew's  familiar  story  of 
the  birth  and  infancy  of  Jesus.  This  treatment  of  the 
subject  is  to  be  regarded  as  poetical  and  doctrinal  rather 
than  historical.  To  this  conclusion  we  are  forced  when 
we  examine  the  story  in  the  light  of  what  Jesus  says  of 
himself,  and  in  the  light  of  the  earliest  Gospel.  That 
witness  has  already  been  presented,  and  we  can  proceed 
at  once  to  test  this  story  by  it. 

Matthew's  story  is  framed,  in  part,  to  prove  the  Davidic 
descent  of  Jesus.  This  is  the  sole  purpose  of  the  Geneal- 
ogy, and  in  the  story  of  the  visit  of  the  Magi  the  prom- 
inence given  to  Micah's  words  emphasizes  the  point  of 
Davidic  descent.  But  Jesus  never  suggested  that  he  was 
of  the  lineage  of  David;  on  the  contrary,  he  appears  to 
have  regarded  the  Scripture  proof  for  the  Messiah's 
descent  from  David  as,  to  say  the  least,  uncertain.  And 
the  townsmen  of  Jesus  in  Nazareth  appear  not  to  have 
heard  of  this  relationship.  This  item,  therefore,  while 
not  absolutely  excluded  from  the  domain  of  history,  is 
set  in  an  unfavorable  light  by  the  Logia  and  the  earliest 
Gospel. 

Following  Matthew's  order  of  narration,  we  come  next 
to  the  statement  of  supernatural  conception.  How  does 
this  agree  with  the  Logia  and  with  the  oldest  Gospel  ? 

Two  points,  very  unequal  in  weight,  are  here  to  be 
considered.  We  shall  first  mention  the  less  important  of 
the  two.  The  oldest  Gospel  represents  the  mother  of 
Jesus  with  some  of  her  sons  as  seeking  to  interrupt  his 
public  work.2  They  thought  that  he  was  out  of  his  right 
mind.  Now  it  seems  impossible  to  explain  this  action  of 
Mary  if  she  knew  that  Jesus  was  of  supernatural  origin. 

*Mt.  2:23. 
sMk.  3:21,  31. 


LEGENDS  OF  BIRTH  AND  INFANCY  OF  JESUS  243 

It  would  betray  an  unexampled  presumption  and  extreme 
forgetfulness  of  what  her  secret  required  of  her.  Her 
action  is  not  easy  of  explanation  even  if  Jesus  was  her 
child  by  Joseph ;  but  it  seems  hopelessly  at  variance  with 
the  view  that  he  had  been  supernaturally  given  to  her. 

The  other  point  to  be  considered  in  answering  the 
question  how  Matthew's  story  of  the  supernatural  con- 
ception agrees  with  the  Logia  and  the  oldest  Gospel  is 
the  silence  of  Jesus.  To  this  fact,  hitherto  quite  neg- 
lected, it  would  seem  as  though  we  ought  to  ascribe 
supreme  significance.  We  have  seen  that  in  the  words 
of  Jesus  both  in  the  Logia  and  throughout  the  synoptists 
there  is  no  allusion  to  his  birth.  So  far  as  his  words 
have  been  preserved,  we  can  say  that  they  completely 
ignore  the  subject  of  his  origin. 

Now  it  is  reasonable  to  believe  that  Jesus  knew  all  that 
was  to  be  known  regarding  his  parentage  and  birth.  It 
it  also  reasonable  to  believe  that  he  would  have  told  his 
disciples  if  there  had  been  anything  regarding  his  paren- 
tage or  birth  that  was  of  importance  for  their  understand- 
ing of  him.  If  he  was  aware  that  his  birth  had  been 
absolutely  unique ;  if,  to  quote  the  language  of  the  creed, 
he  was  aware  that  he  had  been  "conceived  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  born  of  the  virgin  Mary;"  if  he  was  aware  that 
his  relation  to  God  was  thus  essentially  different  from 
that  of  his  brothers  and  sisters  and  of  all  men,  then  his 
silence  becomes  unintelligible,  if  not  wholly  unthinkable. 
For  those  who  look  upon  Jesus  as  the  final  authority  in 
regard  to  himself  the  teaching  of  Matthew's  story  that  he 
had  no  human  father  cannot  be  looked  on  as  historical. 

We  come  now  to  the  visit  of  the  Magi.  These  men, 
whether  Arabians  or  Persians,  were  Gentiles,  and  they 
came  to  worship  the  king  of  the  Jews.  That  they  used 
the  word  "king"  in  its  common  significance,  and  meant 
a  political  ruler  of  the  Jews,  need  not  be  argued.  It  is 
obvious  that  Herod  so  understood  them,  and  all  Jeru- 
salem. This  event  and  its  consequences — the  massacre 
of  the  male  children  of  Bethlehem  and  the  flight  into 
Egypt — were  too  extraordinary  to  be  forgotten  in  a  single 
generation,  or  to  have  remained  without  an  echo  in  the 


244  THE    LEGENDARY    JESUS 

career  of  Jesus.  That  an  occurrence  of  national  signifi- 
cance, and  one  that  touched  the  burning  question  of  the 
appearance  of  the  Messiah,  could  have  transpired  and 
have  left  no  other  trace  in  the  literature  of  the  first 
century  than  what  we  have  in  the  second  chapter  of 
Matthew  seems  most  improbable.  One  should  be  care- 
ful, of  course,  in  using  the  argument  from  silence,  but  it 
would  be  foolish  to  refuse  to  use  it  at  all.  The  visit  of 
the  Magi,  even  if  their  precious  gifts  were  not  kept  as 
souvenirs,  would  have  been  a  family  tradition  of  the  first 
magnitude,  and  it  is  not  in  keeping  with  human  nature  to 
suppose  that  it  would  not  have  become  known  in  Nazar- 
eth. Had  the  visit  of  the  Magi  been  a  fact  of  history, 
and  had  Jesus  been  hailed  by  them  as  king  of  the  Jews, 
it  would  have  tended,  humanly  speaking,  to  fit  him 
for  a  leader  of  the  Zealots,  a  greater  Judas  of  Gamala, 
rather  than  to  be  a  carpenter,  and  then  a  spiritual  teacher 
of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  For  such  a  visit  from  afar, 
suggested  by  a  heavenly  sign,  would  have  been  regarded, 
in  that  age  of  the  world,  as  an  unmistakable  expression 
of  the  will  of  God.  It  would  have  laid  the  most  solemn 
responsibility  on  the  parents  and  later  on  the  child.  The 
parents  would  have  trained  Jesus  with  that  royal  destiny 
ever  in  view,  and  he,  when  arrived  at  maturity,  would 
least  of  all  have  failed  to  be  influenced  by  it. 

The  material  of  Luke's  story  of  the  Nativity  forms  a 
cycle  of  three  parts — the  Annunciation,  with  the  resulting 
visit  to  Elizabeth,1  the  birth  in  Bethlehem,  which  includes 
the  shepherd  idyl,2  and  the  presentation  in  the  temple, 
with  the  accompanying  songs  of  Simeon  and  Anna.8 

The  annunciation  to  Mary  is  elaborate  and  full  of 
detail.  It  was  in  the  sixth  month  after  the  conception  of 
John  the  Baptist,  it  was  made  by  Gabriel  to  a  virgin 
named  Mary  in  Nazareth  of  Galilee,  and  made  after  her 
betrothal  to  Joseph,  who  was  of  Davidic  lineage.  There 
is  no  suggestion  that  the  interview  with  Gabriel  was  in  a 
dream. 

The  annunciation  by  the  angel  consists  of  two  parts — 

1  Lk.    i  :26-56. 

3Lk.  2:1-20.  »Lk.  2:21-39. 


LEGENDS  OF  BIRTH  AND  INFANCY  OF  JESUS  245 

the  first  full  and  complete,1  and  the  second  occasioned  by 
Mary's  question.2  The  original  and  independent  an- 
nouncement was  that  Mary  should  have  a  son,  Jesus,  to 
whom  should  be  given  the  throne  of  his  father  David  and 
who  should  set  up  an  everlasting  kingdom.  With  the 
exception  of  the  personal  name  "Jesus"  the  announcement 
is  drawn  entirely  from  Old  Testament  passages,  and  there 
is  no  suggestion  that  the  origin  of  the  child  was  to  be 
unique.8 

Mary's  wondering  question  brings  a  further  and  much 
more  remarkable  communication  from  Gabriel.  It  is  now 
said  that  the  promised  child  shall  be  supernaturally  given, 
and  for  that  reason  shall  be  called  "holy,"  the  "Son  of 
God."  The  announcement  closes  with  a  word  of  human 
comfort.  The  angel  says  that  a  kinswoman  of  Mary, 
Elizabeth  by  name,  has  come  to  know  the  mighty  power 
of  God's  word,  for  though  old  and  childless  she  is  soon 
to  have  a  son.  In  consequence  of  this  announcement 
Mary  visits  Elizabeth  in  some  unnamed  city  of  Judah,4 
and  there,  apparently  under  the  influence  of  Elizabeth's 
words  of  greeting,  her  heart  overflows  with  song.5  The 
personal  note  in  this  song  culminates  in  the  thought  that 
she  was  to  be  called  "Blessed"  unto  all  generations.6  In 
the  future  which  was  opened  unto  her  she  saw  the  proud 
put  down  and  the  lowly  exalted. 

Not  less  elaborate  and  rich  in  detail  is  the  second  sec- 
tion of  Luke's  story  of  the  nativity.  Mary  now  goes  a 
second  time  into  Judea,  this  time  to  Bethlehem,  in  com- 
pany with  Joseph,  the  occasion  being  an  imperial  enroll- 
ment. Although  Joseph  was  of  the  house  and  family  of 
David,  he  could  not  secure  accommodations  in  the  inn, 
but  must  lodge  where  cattle  were  kept.  In  such  an 
environment  Jesus  was  born. 

This  event  was  at  once  celebrated  in  a  wondrous  man- 
ner.    Somewhere  in  the  vicinity  of  Bethlehem  an  angel 

*Lk.   1:30-33. 

aLk.    i:35-37- 

*  The  difference  between  the  original  announcement  and  the  response  to 
Mary's  question  is  significant,  and  somewhat  confirms  the  textual  argument 
against  vs.  35.  It  is  to  be  noted  also  that  the  reason  for  the  title  "Son 
of  God"  is  not  consistent  with  its  meaning  in  the  synoptic  Gospels. 

•Lk.   1:39,  56.  »Lk.  1:46-55.  *Lk.  1:48. 


246  THE   LEGENDARY   JESUS 

announced  to  shepherds  that  a  saviour  had  been  born, 
and  gave  them  certain  particulars  by  means  of  which  they 
would  be  able  to  find  him.  This  announcement  was  fol- 
lowed by  words  of  praise  to  God  from  a  multitude  of  the 
heavenly  host  who  had  suddenly  become  visible.  When 
at  length  the  angels  vanished,  the  shepherds  went  to 
Bethlehem,  found  the  babe  in  a  manger,  and  returned  to 
their  flocks,  glorifying  and  praising  God. 

The  last  scene  in  Luke's  cycle  of  the  Nativity  includes 
the  two  acts  by  which  the  requirements  of  the  Law  were 
met — circumcision  on  the  eighth  day,1  when  the  child  was 
also  named,  and  presentation  in  the  temple,  accompanied 
by  a  sacrifice,  on  the  fortieth  day.     This  latter  event  be- 
came memorable  in  a  wholly  unexpected  manner.     For 
when  a  certain  Jerusalemite  by  the  name  of  Simeon  saw 
the  child,  he  recognized  him  as  the  Lord's  Christ,2 
"A  light  for  revelation  to  the  Gentiles 
And  the  glory  of  thy  people  Israel." 
He  blessed   the  parents  and   spoke   prophetic  words  to 
Mary,  whose  tragic  tone  contrasts  strongly  with  the  joy- 
ous satisfaction  of  the  preceding  words,  for  he  declared 
that  a  sword  should  pierce  through  her  soul. 

When  Simeon  had  finished  speaking,  the  prophetess 
Anna  came  up,  and  seems  immediately  to  have  recog- 
nized the  great  mission  of  the  child,  for  she  gave  thanks 
to  God  and  spoke  of  him  to  all  who  were  looking  for  the 
redemption  of  Jerusalem.3  Then  the  parents  took  their 
child  to  their  own  city  Nazareth.4 

Such  is  Luke's  story  of  the  Nativity.  That  its  form  is 
largely  poetical  needs  no  proof;  that  its  content  also  is 
poetical,  not  historical,  one  is  led  to  admit  by  examining 
it  in  the  light  of  the  Logia  and  of  the  oldest  Gospel.  It 
is  not  necessary  to  dwell  here  on  the  assertion  that  the 
conception  of  Jesus  was  supernatural.  We  have  already 
spoken  of  that  in  discussing  Matthew's  story  of  the  birth 
of  Jesus.  On  one  point,  however,  it  is  well  to  reflect.  If 
the  attitude  of  Mary  toward  Jesus,  as  recorded  in  the 
earliest  Gospel,  is  inconsistent  with  Matthew's  narrative 

*Lk.  2-.2Z.  »Lk.  2:36-38. 

2Lk.  2:26.  «Lk.  2:39. 


LEGENDS  OF  BIRTH  AND  INFANCY  OF  JESUS  247 

of  the  supernatural  conception,  it  is  still  more  strikingly 
inconsistent  with  Luke's  narrative.  For  here  Mary  is 
explicitly  told  by  Gabriel  that  her  Son  is  to  be  a  gift  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  and  that  he  is  to  receive  the  throne  of 
his  father  David;  she  is  greeted  by  Elizabeth  as  blessed 
among  women;  she  hears  from  the  shepherds — we  may 
naturally  assume  this — what  the  angel  had  told  them; 
and  finally,  she  hears  the  words  of  the  devout  Simeon 
and  the  prophetess  Anna.  We  cannot  believe  that  after 
all  these  testimonies,  human  and  divine,  testimonies  of 
the  most  absolute  and  unimpeachable  character,  she  could 
have  been  so  far  from  believing  in  her  Son  that  she 
thought  him  out  of  his  right  mind,  and  sought  to  interrupt 
the  course  of  his  ministry,  when  he  was  teaching  and 
healing  in  Galilee. 

The  idyl  of  the  shepherds  and  the  scene  in  the  temple 
at  the  presentation  of  Jesus,  if  taken  as  historical,  seem 
deeply  inconsistent  with  the  experience  of  Jesus  at  his 
baptism  in  the  Jordan.  Let  the  two  facts  be  set  clearly 
side  by  side.  The  event  which  turned  the  life  of  Jesus 
into  the  channel  of  public  service,  the  event  which  pro- 
duced a  deeper  commotion  in  his  soul  than  any  other 
except  the  fate  that  he  confronted  when  in  Gethsemane, 
was  the  divine  assurance  that  he  was  called  to  the  Mes- 
sianic work.  This  was  the  culmination  of  his  devotion 
of  himself  to  the  kingdom  of  God  in  submitting  to  the 
baptism  of  John.  We  not  only  have  no  trace  of  this 
great  assurance  in  the  earlier  life  of  Jesus,  but  the 
experience  itself,  with  the  subsequent  temptation  of  which 
it  was  the  occasion,  is  psychologically  inconceivable  if,  in 
his  private  life  from  childhood  on,  he  had  gone  about  with 
the  angelic  announcement  in  his  soul  which  was  made  by 
the  shepherds,  and  had  been  familiar  with  the  prophetic 
declarations  of  Simeon  and  Anna.  These  events,  unlike 
the  announcement  to  Mary  concerning  the  origin  of  her 
son,  were  public  property,  and  we  should  be  unfaithful 
to  the  laws  of  human  nature  were  we  to  suppose  that 
these  extraordinary  occurrences  were  promptly  forgotten, 
and  that  Jesus  grew  up  totally  ignorant  of  them. 

The  unhistorical  character  of  the  Matthaean  and  Lucan 


248  THE   LEGENDARY   JESUS 

stories  of  the  Nativity  cannot  be  more  strongly  presented 
than  by  showing  that  they  are  not  consistent  with  the 
words  of  Jesus  or  with  the  oldest  Gospel.  There  are, 
however,  certain  other  aspects  of  the  two  narratives 
which  are  not  to  be  overlooked  when  seeking  to  know 
whether  these  narratives  are  historical,  and  to  these  we 
now  turn. 

There  is  first,  a  lack  of  harmony  between  the  two  nar- 
ratives. Thus  we  find  an  unremovable  difference  of 
view  as  to  the  home  of  Joseph  and  Mary.  According  to 
Luke,  this  was  Nazareth,1  according  to  Matthew  it  was 
Bethlehem.2  According  to  Luke,  the  parents  returned 
to  Nazareth  immediately  after  the  presentation  of  Jesus 
in  the  temple,  that  is,  when  he  was  about  forty  days  old;3 
according  to  Matthew,  they  remained  in  Bethlehem  a 
considerable  time,  perhaps  a  year,  for  Herod's  calculation 
that  the  child  would  surely  be  included  if  he  destroyed  all 
the  children  of  Bethlehem  who  were  under  two  years  of 
age  is  left  uncorrected  by  the  evangelist.*  Luke's  narra- 
tive, it  will  be  noticed,  leaves  no  room  for  a  flight  into 
Egypt.  It  will  also  be  noticed  that  it  leaves  no  place  for 
the  visit  of  the  Magi.  For  Matthew's  narrative  clearly 
implies  that  at  the  time  of  this  visit  the  child  was  several 
months  old.  But  according  to  Luke  the  family  left  for 
Nazareth  when  Jesus  was  only  about  forty  days  old. 
Moreover,  if  we  were  to  assume,  contrary  to  the  evident 
sense  of  Matthew,  that  the  visit  of  the  Magi  fell  within 
these  forty  days,  then  we  should  be  face  to  face  with  the 
difficulty  that,  while  in  Matthew  the  family  of  Joseph  flee 
into  Egypt  to  escape  Herod,  in  Luke  they  go,  as  it  were, 
into  the  lion's  den — go  to  Jerusalem,  into  the  temple,  and 
there  attract  extraordinary  attention,  which  surely  would 
not  be  favorable  to  their  escape  from  Herod's  aroused 
suspicions. 

Thus  the  two  narratives,  in  respect  to  these  matters  of 
place  and  time,  are  not  consistent  with  each  other — a 
serious  matter  indeed  if  they  are  held  to  be  historical,  but 
not  serious  if  they  are  free  poetic  treatments  of  the  sub- 
ject of  Jesus'  birth. 

*Lk.  2:4,  39.  aMt.  2:1,  23.  *Lk.   2:22,  39.  'ML  2:16. 


LEGENDS  OF  BIRTH  AND  INFANCY  OF  JESUS  249 

Another  aspect  of  these  narratives  which  supports  what 
has  been  said  is  the  literary  difference  between  them  and 
the  Gospels  as  a  whole.  According  to  the  Logia  Jesus 
said  nothing  about  angels  and  in  the  earliest  Gospel  there 
is  but  a  single  reference  to  angels  in  the  earthly  career  of 
Jesus,1  and  that  is  in  a  passage  which  is  generally  re- 
garded as  rhetorical.  In  Luke  there  is  also  a  single 
reference  to  an  angel  appearing  to  Jesus,  but  the  text  of 
this  passage  is  uncertain.2  But  in  the  narratives  of  the 
birth  of  Jesus,  on  the  other  hand,  angels  are  in  the  fore- 
ground. Joseph  is  persuaded  by  an  angel  to  take  Mary,3 
he  is  commanded  by  an  angel  to  fly  into  Egypt  and  by  an 
angel  to  return  to  the  land  of  Israel  ;4  Gabriel  visits  Mary 
in  Nazareth,5  an  angel  announces  the  birth  of  Jesus  to 
the  shepherds,6  and  a  multitude  of  angels  celebrate  that 
announcement.7  Thus  the  narrative  is  strongly  charac- 
terized and  at  the  same  time  marked  off  from  the  story 
of  the  public  ministry  of  Jesus  by  the  presence  of  angels. 
Does  that  suggest  history  or  poetry? 

Akin  to  this  feature  is  Matthew's  star.  What  the  Magi 
saw  in  the  east  need  not  occasion  wonder,  but  what  took 
place  between  Jerusalem  and  Bethlehem,  and  then  over 
Bethlehem,  can  hardly  be  looked  upon  otherwise  than  as 
poetry,  for  now  the  star  moved  before  them  and  stood 
over  the  spot  where  the  young  child  was.  But  obviously 
the  wise  men  of  old  could  not  have  found  a  particular 
house  in  a  village  by  its  being  located  exactly  under  a 
star — a  feat  impossible  to  modern  astronomers  with  the 
most  accurate  instruments. 

Another  point  is  to  be  noted  in  speaking  of  the  literary 
peculiarity  of  the  narratives  of  the  birth  of  Jesus,  and 
that  is  the  presence  of  poetry  in  Luke's  story.  Mary  re- 
plied in  verse  to  Elizabeth's  greeting,  and  in  verse  did 
Simeon  also  utter  his  joy.  We  do  not  naturally  think  of 
these  poems  as  extemporary,  but  rather  as  careful  delib- 
erate productions,  and  their  presence  is  another  sign  that 
the  story  in  which  they  are  found  is  not  to  be  read  as 
history. 

*Mlc    1:13.  »Mt.   1:20.  »Lk.  1:26.  »Lk.  2:13. 

fLlc  22:43.  *Mt.  2:13,  19.        aLk.  2:9. 


250  THE   LEGENDARY   JESUS 

While  speaking  of  the  differences  between  the  two 
synoptic  stories  of  the  birth  of  Jesus,  it  may  be  noted  that 
neither  story  is  consistent  with  the  implications  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel.  According  to  this  writing,  the  Logos  be- 
came flesh  in  Jesus,1  and  the  Logos  is  conceived  as  an 
eternal,  divine,  personal  Being.2  But  if  Jesus  was  the 
incarnation  of  the  eternal  Logos,  he  was  obviously  not  a 
child  of  the  Spirit,  as  the  synoptic  story  represents.  More- 
over the  author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  suggests  that  the 
incarnation  of  the  Logos  in  Jesus  was  an  ethical  process,* 
and  therefore  essentially  unlike  the  origin  of  Jesus  as 
given  in  the  synoptic  stories. 

It  has  already  been  suggested  what  aim  the  writers 
had  in  various  sections  of  their  narratives  of  the  birth  of 
Jesus.  Let  this  aspect  of  the  subject  be  here  briefly  sum- 
marized. Matthew  in  his  Genealogy  wished  to  show  the 
Davidic  descent  of  Jesus ;  in  his  account  of  the  Lord's 
birth,  to  show  that  he  had  no  human  father;  in  the  visit 
of  the  Magi,  to  show  the  world-wide  significance  of 
Jesus'  birth  ;  and  in  the  Egyptian  sojourn  and  the  settle- 
ment in  Nazareth,  to  show  both  the  fulfilment  of  Scrip- 
ture in  the  career  of  Jesus  and  also  how  he  was  cared  for 
in  the  providence  of  God. 

Pass  to  Luke's  narrative.  In  the  Annunciation,  the 
promised  child  is  described,  first,  as  a  descendant  of 
David  and  heir  to  his  throne,  then  as  without  earthly 
father;  in  the  account  of  Jesus'  birth,  there  is  an  evident 
emphasis  on  the  significance  of  its  occurrence  in  Beth- 
lehem, the  city  of  David ;  in  the  idyl  of  the  shepherds,  the 
birth  of  Jesus  is  glorified  by  a  disclosure  of  the  profound 
interest  which  the  unseen  world  took  in  it;  and  in  the 
story  of  the  presentation  in  the  temple,  the  words  of 
prophecy  celebrate  Jesus  as  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise 
of  God,  and  also  throw  across  the  story  of  the  Nativity 
its  only  shadow  in  the  reference  to  the  Messiah's  tragic 
fate. 


1  Tn.  1:14. 
2Jn.  1:1-5. 
sJn.    1:12.— 1 


-The  incarnation  seems  to  have  been  regarded  by  the  author 
as  the  supreme  instance  of  the  same  divine  process  that  had  been  realized 
in  former  times. 


LEGENDS  OF  BIRTH  AND  INFANCY  OF  JESUS  2$I 

These  motives  differ  somewhat  among  themselves,  yet 
they  may  all  without  violence  be  comprehended  under  the 
general  thought  of  glorifying  Jesus.  With  this  aim  the 
Church  sympathizes  as  deeply  today  as  did  its  predeces- 
sor at  the  close  of  the  first  century,  but  we  should  not 
express  ourselves  in  the  same  way  that  was  chosen  by 
the  ancient  Church.  With  the  changed  view  of  the 
nature  of  prophecy  and  the  tendency  to  judge  Jesus  by 
what  he  was  in  himself,  we  are  coming  to  disregard  the 
corner-stone  of  the  old  apologetics,  and  to  consider  it  a 
matter  of  little  moment  whether  Jesus  was  physically 
descended  from  David,  whether  he  was  called  out  of 
Egypt  agreeably  to  Hosea  10:1,  and  whether  it  is  possible 
to  make  Jeremiah's  words  apply  to  the  massacre  of  the 
male  infants  of  Bethlehem. 

Again,  the  changed  thought  of  the  universe  which  has 
brought  astrology  into  disrepute  and  which  finds  the  man- 
ifestation of  God's  good  pleasure  in  the  laws  of  matter 
and  spirit  under  which  we  live  rather  than  in  the  appear- 
ance of  supernatural  beings,  would  lead  us,  if  we  were 
for  the  first  time  seeking  to  describe  the  significance  of 
the  birth  of  Jesus  in  a  worthy  manner — would  lead  us  to 
forms  of  expression  quite  different  from  the  story  of  the 
Magi  and  the  idyl  of  the  shepherds.  The  nature  and 
scope  of  the  mission  of  Jesus  are  far  more  broadly  and 
truly  understood  in  the  Church  of  today  than  they  were 
at  the  close  of  the  first  century.  Inevitably,  therefore,  if 
we  were  freely  imagining  the  circumstances  of  his  birth, 
our  pictures  would  not  wholly  agree  with  those  of  the 
early  writers  who  essayed  this  task.  With  their  funda- 
mental aim  and  feeling  we  truly  sympathize,  and  we 
cherish  their  expression  of  that  aim  and  feeling  as  a 
permanent  enrichment  of  Christian  literature,  though  it 
is  no  longer  a  natural  expression  for  us. 

There  is  one  point  in  the  story  of  the  origin  of  Jesus 
which,  because  it  deeply  affects  his  person,  has  been  of 
overshadowing  influence  in  the  history  of  the  Church — 
we  refer  of  course  to  its  representation  that  Jesus  had 
no  human  father.  We  have  already  considered  this  in 
the  light  of  the  Logia  and  the  oldest  Gospel.    As  it  is 


252  THE   LEGENDARY   JESUS 

inconsistent  with  those  sources,  it  cannot  be  regarded  as 
historical.  But  the  great  importance  which  it  has  had  in 
Christian  history  leads  us,  in  concluding  this  chapter,  to 
consider  its  origin. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  show  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
supernatural  conception  of  the  Messiah  is  essentially 
un-Jewish.  It  is  well  known  that  the  Old  Testament 
never  contemplates  a  future  deliverer  who  is  other  than 
a  true  normal  man.  The  thought  of  a  Messiah  who  is 
physically  sprung  from  God  is  altogether  foreign  to  it. 
The  appeal  to  Is.  7:14,  first  made  in  Matthew,  is  not 
an  appeal  to  the  original  text  of  the  prophet,  but  to  an 
incorrect  Greek  translation.  The  "young  woman"  of  the 
Hebrew  original  became  a  "virgin"  in  the  Septuagint, 
and  this  seemed  to  furnish  excellent  Scripture  authority 
for  the  view  set  forth  in  our  first  and  third  Gospels.  But 
this  was  a  delusion.  The  great  prophet  was  made 
responsible  for  a  teaching  which  neither  he  nor  any  Old 
Testament  writer  ever  entertained. 

This  teaching  is  likewise  foreign  to  Jewish  writings  of 
the  period  between  the  Old  Testament  and  the  coming  of 
Jesus.  The  Similitudes  of  Enoch  speak  of  a  heavenly 
Messiah,  but  there  is  no  trace  of  the  idea  that  this  heav- 
enly being  was  to  come  into  organic  relation  to  man- 
kind by  birth  from  a  virgin. 

It  is  true  that  the  story  of  the  birth  of  Jesus,  especially 
as  given  by  Luke,  has  a  Jewish  color.  It  speaks  of 
Gabriel,  of  the  throne  of  David,  the  house  of  Jacob  and 
other  details  that  are  Jewish;  but  this  color  may  have 
been  given  by  a  Gentile  writer  as  well  as  by  a  Jew.1 
Moreover,  it  is  merely  color;  it  does  not  touch  the 
essence  of  the  story.  For  the  source  of  this  we  must 
turn  to  the  Greek  element  of  the  early  Church.  This 
element  was  saturated  with  the  thought  that  great  per- 
sons were  the  offspring  of  gods.  Such  were  the  mighty 
figures  of  prehistoric  times,  Hercules  and  Aesculapius, 
Hermes  and  Dionysos.     Such  also  were  the  distinguished 

1  Wilhelm  Tell  has  even  more  than  a  mere  Swiss  color,  yet  Schiller  was 
not  Swiss;  and  Julius  Caesar  has  more  than  a  mere  Latin  color,  yet  Shake- 
spere  was  not  a  Roman. 


LEGENDS  OF  BIRTH  AND  INFANCY  OF  JESUS  253 

characters  of  history  in  ever  increasing  numbers.  From 
the  fifth  century  before  Christ  onward  into  our  era  the 
belief  in  physical  descent  from  a  god  and  an  earthly 
mother  pervaded  all  classes  of  society.  Speusippus, 
nephew  and  successor  of  Plato  as  head  of  the  Academy, 
believed  that  the  great  philosopher  was  born  of  a  virgin. 
Philo  of  Alexandria  was  so  deeply  influenced  by  Greek 
philosophy  that  he  ascribed  the  paternity  of  Isaac  di- 
rectly to  God.  Justin  Martyr,  who  was  born  not  long 
after  the  composition  of  our  Matthew  and  Luke  and  in 
whom  we  can  see  how  an  educated  Greek  Christian  looked 
at  the  doctrine  of  the  supernatural  origin  of  Jesus,  said 
in  his  Apology  addressed  to  Antoninus  Pius :  "When  we 
say  that  the  Word,  who  is  the  first  birth  of  God,  was 
produced  without  sexual  union,  and  that  he,  Jesus  Christ, 
our  teacher,  was  crucified  and  rose  again  and  ascended 
into  heaven,  we  propound  nothing  different  from  what  \ 
you  believe  regarding  those  whom  you  esteem  sons  of 
Jupiter."  And  again  he  says :  "If  we  affirm  that  he  was 
born  of  a  virgin,  accept  this  in  common  with  what  you  , 
accept  of  P:rseus." 

We  shall  not  transcend  the  Greek  environment  of  the 
early  Church  if  we  draw  an  illustration  from  Roman 
history,  for  in  this  point  of  descent  from  the  gods,  as  in 
a  thousand  others,  the  Romans  borrowed  from  the  Greeks. 
Suetonius  in  his  History  of  Augustus  does  not  hesitate 
to  ascribe  to  Apollo  the  paternity  of  the  great  Emperor ;  j 
and  Vergil,  a  century  earlier,  called  him  an  offspring  of  ' 
Jupiter. 

These  illustrations  are  sufficient  to  show  that  the  Greek 
world  had  long  been  familiar  with  the  belief  that  great 
men  spring  from  the  gods.  Whether  we  think  with 
Justin  that  the  Greeks  and  Romans  were  led  to  this 
belief  by  "wicked  demons,"  or  regard  it,  somewhat  more 
charitably,  as  a  sincere  religious  attempt  to  account  for 
the  mystery  of  extraordinary  personalities,  the  fact  itself 
remains. 

Now  when  one  reflects  that  the  Christian  Church  after 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  was  very  largely,  perhaps 
we  might  say  essentially,  a  church  made  up  of  Greek- 


254  THE    LEGENDARY    JESUS 

speaking  people;  when  also  one  reflects  that  this  con- 
ception of  physical  descent  from  gods  in  the  case  of 
great  men  was  as  characteristic  of  the  Greeks  in  the  first 
century  as  the  thought  of  Evolution  is  of  the  present 
generation,  and  when,  finally,  one  considers  that  the 
earliest  Gospel  left  the  origin  and  childhood  of  Jesus  a 
blank,  and  so  an  open  field  for  speculation,  it  cannot 
appear  strange  that  Gentile  converts  claimed  a  miraculous 
birth  for  that  teacher  and  wonder-worker  whose  wisdom 
and  might  far  transcended  those  of  all  other  great  men. 
From  the  Greek  point  of  view  this  result  was  almost 
inevitable. 

They  who  originated  the  stories  of  the  birth  of  Jesus 
doubtless  believed  that  they  were  writing  what  was  true. 
The  supernatural  conception  was  for  them  a  natural,  if 
not  necessary,  inference  from  the  stupendous  results  of 
the  teaching  of  Jesus.  A  man  whose  name  had  pene- 
trated the  entire  empire  of  Rome  in  less  than  a  century 
and  had  called  into  being  almost  countless  societies  of 
disciples  must — as  it  would  have  seemed  to  them — have 
sprung  directly  from  God.  Hence  it  is  not  likely  that  it 
occurred  to  them  to  search  for  contemporary  evidence 
of  the  truth  of  their  belief.  Moreover  it  was  not  an  age 
which  was  given  to  investigating  the  historical  grounds 
of  its  beliefs.  This  particular  article  of  belief  was  simply 
a  part  of  the  Greek  heritage,  and  in  the  thought  of  Gen- 
tile believers  it  needed  no  other  support  than  that  which 
any  one  could  find  in  abundance  in  the  victories  which 
were  daily  being  achieved  in  the  name  of  Jesus. 

And  the  originators  of  the  story  not  only  believed  it 
to  be  essentially  true  to  fact,  they  also,  beyond  question, 
felt  that  this  story  rendered  to  Jesus  a  just  meed  of  honor. 
Wide  circles  must  have  shared  this  feeling,  for  not  other- 
wise could  we  explain  how  it  came  to  be  incorporated  in 
the  narratives  of  Matthew  and  Luke. 

But  in  this  matter  of  the  supernatural  origin  of  Jesus 
the  modern  view  differs  from  that  of  the  early  Greek 
Christians.  We  do  not  seek  to  account  for  great  person- 
alities, even  for  the  greatest  known  among  men,  in  the 
way  they  did.     To  us  God  appears  as  a  God  of  order, 


LEGENDS  OF  BIRTH  AND  INFANCY  OF  JESUS  255 

who  invariably  honors  his  own  laws  and  institutions. 
Doubtless  the  person  of  Jesus  still  has  its  profound 
mysteries,  but  these  are  not  illuminated  for  us  by  the 
Greek  solution.  That  only  begets  fresh  mysteries.  But, 
finally,  it  cannot  be  said  of  the  age  that  is  beginning  to 
reject  the  Greek  story  of  the  miraculous  conception  of 
Jesus  that  it  is  less  concerned  to  honor  him  than  were 
those  unknown  believers  who  first  gave  currency  to  that 
story.  No  age  has  ever  given  to  Jesus  more  intelligent 
and  sincere  homage  than  is  being  rendered  by  the  present. 
But  our  world  is  widely  different  from  that  of  the  first 
century,  and  some  things  that  seemed  natural  then  are 
for  us  irrational  and  impossible. 


CHAPTER  II 
LEGENDS  OF  THE  MINISTRY  OF  JESUS 

To  discriminate  in  an  absolute  manner  between  the 
historical  and  the  legendary  in  our  synoptic  Gospels,  to 
point  out  the  exact  amount  of  historical  material  in  any 
doubtful  narrative,  will  probably  always  be  impossible. 
It  is  certainly  not  the  purpose  of  this  chapter  to  attempt 
such  a  task.  But  the  impossibility  of  an  absolute  and 
final  discrimination  ought  not  to  deter  one  from  making 
any  discrimination  at  all.  Loyalty  to  Jesus  ought  to 
make  every  disciple  eager  to  know  just  as  far  as  possible 
where  the  faithful  portrait  of  the  Master  has  been  over- 
laid with  later  material,  no  matter  how  dear  that  material 
may  have  become  through  long  and  unquestioned  use. 

It  is  a  fact  of  much  importance  that,  as  respects  legen- 
dary accretions,  the  story  of  the  public  ministry  of  Jesus 
differs  widely  both  from  the  story  of  his  childhood  and 
from  the  story  of  what  succeeded  his  death.  It  is  rela- 
tively free  from  such  accretions.  When  one  considers 
the  character  of  the  age  in  which  the  Gospel  took  shape, 
its  extreme  credulity  and  love  of  the  supernatural,  one  is 
not  surprised  that  the  account  of  the  public  ministry  of 
Jesus  has  some  legendary  elements  in  it,  but  rather  that 
it  has  so  little  which  must  be  called  legendary. 

In  the  preceding  study  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus  in 
Part  II  some  incidents  were  considered  which  are  not 
free  from  legendary  color,  and  which  might  therefore 
be  included  in  the  present  chapter.  The  reason  why  they 
were  considered  there  and  why  they  are  not  classed  with 
the  material  of  this  chapter  is  that  the  historical  element 
in  them  was  regarded  as  clear  and  important.  Only  that 
material  is  taken  up  in  the  present  chapter  whose  histor- 
ical element  is  obscure  or  even  unrecognizable.  The  dis- 
tinction between  the  two  classes  is  one  of  degree. 

256 


LEGENDS  OF  THE  MINISTRY  OF  JESUS       257 

The  earliest  Christian  source — the  Logia — contains 
nothing  which  need  be  regarded  as  in  any  degree  legen- 
dary. The  oldest  Gospel — the  basis  of  the  first  and  third 
— contains  perhaps  no  more  than  five  incidents  which  are 
to  be  regarded  as  legendary,  but  there  are  easily  double 
this  number  in  the  material  which  is  peculiar  to  Matthew 
and  in  that  which  is  peculiar  to  Luke.  The  Johannine 
tradition  yet  further  illustrates  the  law  that,  in  unhistoric 
ages,  the  growth  of  legend  becomes  more  luxuriant  the 
further  one  is  removed  in  time  from  the  subject  which 
is  being  treated. 

We  turn  first  to  the  legendary  element  in  the  oldest 
Gospel.  The  storm  on  the  lake,  which  threatened  death 
to  the  apostles  and  to  Jesus  who  was  asleep,  and  the 
feeding  of  the  great  multitude  with  five  loaves  and  two 
fishes  have  already  been  discussed,1  and  reason  has  been 
given  for  the  view  that  the  actual  incident  in  each  case 
was  such  as  the  spiritual  resources  of  Jesus  amply  ex- 
plain. We  shall  not  here  retrace  that  argument,  but  only 
call  attention  to  the  fact  that  by  the  legendary  modifica- 
tion of  the  historical  incident  its  spiritual  uniqueness  has 
been  lost,  and  what  remains  is  on  a  plane  with  many  a 
story  of  the  nations.  If  Jesus,  when  awakened  out  of 
sleep  in  the  midst  of  a  dangerous  tempest,  delivered  his 
disciples  from  their  terror  by  his  own  perfect  calmness, 
and  so  brought  them  safely  to  the  shore ;  and  if  his  pres- 
ence with  the  multitude  and  the  outpouring  of  his  gracious 
message  concerning  the  heavenly  Father  made  of  the 
little  food  at  hand  a  satisfying  feast  for  all,  we  have 
therein  facts  of  abiding  significance,  facts  moreover  which 
are  in  perfect  accord  with  the  spirituality  of  the  method 
of  Jesus  as  seen  in  the  Logia  and  the  earliest  Gospel. 
The  motive  which  led  to  the  transformation  of  the  his- 
torical incidents  was  probably  the  desire  to  make  Jesus 
outshine  all  other  wonder-workers,  or  that  transformation 
was  due  to  the  view  of  the  person  of  Jesus  which,  con- 
trary to  his  own  words  about  himself,  arose  and  flour- 
ished in  the  Early  Church. 

*See  pp.  177-179. 
17 


258  THE    LEGENDARY    JESUS 

Another  incident  in  the  oldest  Gospel,1  followed  by  Mat- 
thew and  John,2  is  that  of  Jesus  walking  upon  the  lake. 

One  who  comes  to  this  story  from  a  study  of  the  Logic 
— that  collection  of  the  words  of  Jesus  which  doubtless 
gives  us  our  most  trustworthy  picture  of  his  mind  and 
method — seems  to  be  in  a  different  sphere.  The  law  of 
spiritual  means  for  spiritual  ends  is  dropped,  and  we  have 
instead  the  use  of  most  extraordinary  physical  means  for 
a  spiritual  end.3  We  have  an  event  precisely  of  that 
character  which  Jesus,  in  the  wilderness,  when  contem- 
plating the  great  work  which  had  been  opened  before  him, 
positively  refused  to  employ.  He  there  rejected  forever 
that  conception  of  Messiahship  which  called  for  outward 
material  proofs,  miraculous  in  nature.  But  here  he  is 
said  to  have  walked  on  the  water  and  thereby  to  have 
brought  his  disciples  to  the  confession,  "Of  a  truth  thou 
art  the  Son  of  God  I"  Did  he  then  really  abandon  the 
high  ground  which  he  took  at  the  beginning  of  his  public 
ministry  and  drop  into  the  popular  conception  of  the 
Messiah,  or  should  we  rather  conclude  that  the  popular 
conception  has  here  modified  some  striking  historical 
incident?  The  second  alternative  seems  immeasurably 
the  more  probable.  The  other  alternative  has  against  it 
not  only  the  great  weight  of  the  Logia,  but  also  certain 
details  of  the  text  itself,  which  we  will  now  consider. 
We  need  not  dwell  on  the  fact  that  the  three  accounts  of 
the  incident  have  each  one  its  own  geographical  setting, 
the  oldest  Gospel  saying  that  the  disciples  started  for 
Bethsaida4  and  finally  anchored  at  Gennesaret,5  Matthew 
that  they  started  for  the  "other  side"6 — whichever  that 
may  have  been — and  came  to  Gennesaret,7  and  John  that 
they  started  for  Capernaum8  and  ultimately  reached 
there,8  though  this  vagueness  is  not  favorable  to  the 
complete  trustworthiness  of  the  tradition.     Passing  this 

1  Mk.   6:45-52;   Mt.    14:22-27,   32-33- 

aTn.   6:16-21. 

8  That  Matthew  understood  the  story  to  teach  spiritual  truth  is  plain 
from  14:33.  It  is  implied  also  in  Mk.  6:52.  Moreover  there  is  no  reason- 
able ground  for  thinking  that  these  old  fishermen  would  have  been 
drowned  had  there   not  been  a  miraculous  intervention  on   their  behalf. 

«Mk.  6:45.  TMt.  14:34. 

*Mk.   6:53.  8Jn.  6:17. 

•Mt.   14:22.  »Jn.   6:21. 


LEGENDS  OF  THE  MINISTRY  OF  JESUS       259 

we  will  briefly  note  two  points  which  concern  the  kernel 
of  the  present  narrative  more  closely. 

The  oldest  Gospel,  speaking  from  the  standpoint  of 
those  on  the  boat,  says  that  Jesus  "would  have  passed  by 
them/'1  that  is,  they  saw  him  moving-  parallel  with  their 
own  course.  This  point  is  dropped  by  Matthew,  and  in 
John  we  have  a  contradictory  statement,  viz.  that  Jesus 
was  drawing  nigh  unto  the  boat.2  Now  this  detail  of 
the  oldest  Gospel  seems  out  of  harmony  with  the  rest  of 
the  present  story,  for  which  reason  it  may  have  been 
dropped  by  Matthew  and  John.  This  lack  of  harmony 
suggests  that  the  detail  in  question  may  be  a  survival  of 
an  earlier  form  of  the  tradition.  If  Jesus  was  indeed 
walking  on  the  water  for  the  relief  of  his  disciples,  then 
the  view  of  John  that  he  approached  the  boat  is  certainly 
preferable  to  that  of  Mark  that  he  "would  have  passed 
by  them,"  for  this  detail  only  heightens  the  spectacular 
nature  of  the  act;  but  if  he  was  on  the  shore,  walking 
toward  their  common  destination  according  to  his  prev- 
ious agreement  with  them,8  then  these  words  of  the  old- 
est Gospel  are  perfectly  intelligible.  Again,  the  way  in 
which  the  narratives  of  Mark  and  Matthew  conclude 
should  not  be  overlooked.  According  to  Mark,  the  effect 
of  the  whole  incident  on  the  disciples  was  a  silent  amaze- 
ment,4 in  which  the  author  saw  spiritual  obtuseness  ;5  but 
according  to  Matthew,  the  effect  was  an  outspoken  con- 
fession which  implied  not  spiritual  obtuseness  but  spiritual 
illumination.  This  divergence  is  certainly  more  in  the 
manner  of  legend  than  of  history.  Legend  is  relatively 
free,  history  relatively  bound. 

We  come  now  to  the  story  of  the  metamorphosis 
(transfiguration)  of  Jesus.6  Perhaps  the  chief  if  not 
only  reason  why  any  of  us  think  of  this  as  an  actual 
historical  occurrence  is  that  we  find  it  in  the  Gospels,  and 
we  have  been  brought  up  in  ignorance  of  the  fact  that 
the  Gospels  contain  much  besides  history.  Such  a  story 
found  anywhere  else — a  story  telling  how  a  man's  face 


»Mlc  6:48.  «Mlc.  6:5r. 

Mn.  6:19.  BMk.  6:52. 

8Mk.  6:4s    (wpody*).  «Mk.  9:2-8;  Mt.  17:1-9;  Lk.  9:28-36. 


200  THE   LEGENDARY   JESUS 

shone  as  the  sun,  and  his  garments  became  glistening 
white,  how  other  men  who  had  been  dead  long  centuries 
came  and  talked  with  him,  and  how  an  articulate  voice 
came  out  of  a  cloud — would  at  once,  without  the  slightest 
hesitation,  be  regarded  as  a  legend. 

But  this  is  found  in  the  midst  of  incidents  which  are 
unquestionably  historical,  and  concerns  the  most  extra- 
ordinary of  all  men.  May  it  not  therefore  be  historical? 
Let  us  see.  The  episode  of  Moses  and  Elijah  is  partially 
explained,  for  Luke  says  that  these  men  spoke  to  Jesus  of 
his  approaching  death  in  Jerusalem.1  The  oldest  Gospel 
says  simply  that  they  "talked  with  him;"2  but  when  it 
adds  that  the  disciples  were  charged  not  to  tell  what  they 
had  seen  until  after  the  Son  of  Man  should  have  arisen 
from  the  dead?  it  suggests  at  least  that  the  subject  of 
conversation  on  the  mountain  may  have  been  such  as 
Luke  mentions.  But  what  did  it  mean  that  Moses  and 
Elijah  talked  with  Jesus  of  his  approaching  death  in 
Jerusalem?  The  fact  that  the  narrative  does  not  tell 
ivhat  they  said,  or  how  they  regarded  this  approaching 
event,  deprives  the  incident  of  all  possible  value  for  the 
readers  unless  it  be  held  that  the  Old  Testament  itself, 
represented  by  Moses  and  Elijah,  tells  us  what  they  must 
have  said.  Hence  we  cannot  doubt  that  the  evangelists 
in  saying  that  Moses  and  Elijah  talked  with  Jesus  of  his 
approaching  death  assumed  that  what  they  said  could  be 
found  in  Scripture,  when  this  was  read  in  the  light  of 
the  resurrection.  We  are  also  doubtless  safe  in  saying 
that,  in  the  thought  of  the  narrators,  Moses  and  Elijah 
did  not  talk  with  Jesus  for  his  instruction :  their  concep- 
tion of  Jesus  excludes  such  dependence.  If  not  for  his 
instruction,  it  must  have  been  for  the  instruction  of  the 
disciples. 

Now  two  considerations  suggest  themselves  at  this 
point.  First,  that  the  attitude  of  Jesus  toward  the  Old 
Testament,  judged  by  the  clearest  light  which  the  Gos- 
pels throw  upon  it,  does  not  warrant  the  view  that  he 
used  either  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  the  death  of 

lLlc  9:31.  aMk.  9:4-  •Mk.  9:9. 


LEGENDS  OF  THE  MINISTRY  OF  JESUS  26l 

Mos2s  and  Elijah,  or  the  words  attributed  to  them  in  the 
Old  Testament,  to  prove  that  he  was  about  to  die  in 
Jerusalem,  or  that  he  must  die  there.  Second,  it  is  not  in 
agreement  with  the  teaching  of  Jesus  who  said  that  he 
came  to  fulfil  the  law  and  the  prophets  to  suppose  that  he 
would  have  summoned  Moses  and  Elijah  to  instruct  his 
disciples.  Why  should  he?  Might  not  one  say — adapt- 
ing to  this  end  the  parable  of  Jesus:  If  the  disciples 
would  not  believe  the  word  of  the  Master  regarding  the 
necessity  of  his  death,  neither  would  they  believe  though 
Moses  and  Elijah  should  rise  from  the  dead  to  declare  it 
to  them  ? 

The  episode  of  Moses  and  Elijah  is  followed  by  that  of 
the  voice  out  of  the  cloud.  There  is  no  evident  connec- 
tion between  them.  According  to  Luke,1  Moses  and 
Elijah  had  already  vanished2  before  the  heavenly  voice 
was  heard.  The  voice  out  of  the  cloud  was  not  for  Jesus, 
but  for  the  disciples.  They  are  expressly  told  to  hear 
him.  The  injunction  is  perfectly  general,  but  its  place 
in  this  story  may  suggest  that  it  refers  especially  to  what 
Jesus  says  of  his  death.  Thus  it  would  seem  to  be  meant 
as  a  re-inforcement  of  the  teaching  of  the  last  episode, 
for  surely  the  evangelists  did  not  suppose  there  was  any 
disagreement  between  the  heavenly  visitants  and  Jesus. 
The  disciples  are  not  bidden  to  hear  him  in  contrast  to 
Moses  and  Elijah,  but  simply  to  hear  him.  He  had 
recently  spoken  to  them  of  his  impending  death,3  and 
now  they  have  heard  Moses  and  Elijah  address  him  on 
that  very  subject.  Obviously  then  the  doctrine  of  the 
Messiah's  death  was  not  new  and  questionable,  but 
ancient  and  divine.  Such  would  seem  to  be  the  sense  of 
the  story. 

Against  the  historical  character  of  this  episode,  as  of 
the  last,  one  consideration  of  great  weight  is  the  subse- 
quent course  of  events.  Had  these  three  disciples  been 
supernaturally  informed  that  the  death  of  Jesus  was  a 
doctrine  of  the  Law  and  Prophets,  and  had  they  been 

*Lk.  9:33. 

*  They  were  in  the  act  of  vanishing  when  Peter  began  to  speak  about  the 
"booth*/' 
»Mk.  8:31. 


262  THE   LEGENDARY    JESUS 

commanded  by  the  voice  of  God  himself  to  hear  Jesus, 
that  is,  receive  his  words  about  his  approaching  death, 
then  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  they  could  afterward 
have  been  in  fear  and  ignorance  when  he  spoke  of  his 
approaching  death.1 

But  while  this  story  is  thus  seemingly  unintelligible  as 
history,  it  is  not  difficult  to  comprehend  it  as  an  attempt 
— parallel  to  Luke  24 — to  ground  the  death  of  the  Mes- 
siah in  the  Scriptures.  How  could  this  have  been  done, 
in  the  latter  half  of  the  first  century,  more  vividly  than 
by  summoning  Moses  and  Elijah — representatives  of  the 
Law  and  the  Prophets — and  by  letting  them  talk  with 
Jesus  of  his  approaching  death  in  Jerusalem?  And  how 
could  the  divinity  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Messiah's  death 
be  suggested  so  impressively  for  that  age  as  by  a  direct 
voice  from  the  sky  commanding  the  disciples  to  hear 
Jesus,  where  the  context  seems  to  refer  in  particular  to 
hearing  what  he  says  on  this  very  subject?  We  must 
not  forget  that  the  death  of  Jesus  was  for  the  Jews  the 
great  "stumbling-block"2  in  the  way  of  accepting  him  as 
the  Messiah.  Hence  the  insistence  of  the  early  Church 
upon  the  scripturalncss  of  the  doctrine,  and  the  desire  to 
find  it  enunciated  by  Jesus. 

Of  Matthew's  peculiar  material  which  falls  within  the 
present  chapter  only  two  incidents  involve  Jesus  in  a 
personal  way ;  the  others  belong  to  his  trial  and  to  the 
period  between  that  and  the  resurrection.  The  first  of 
these  two  incidents  is  that  of  Peter's  walking  on  the 
water,3  which  is  inserted  in  the  story  of  how  Jesus  came 
to  his  disciples  when  they  were  distressed  in  rowing.4  If 
that  story  is  legendary,  as  we  seem  compelled  to  hold, 
then  is  this  also,  and  for  the  same  essential  reason.  It 
conflicts  with  the  known  principles  and  method  of  Jesus. 
It  represents  him  as  working  an  astounding  miracle, 
utterly  unlike  his  mighty  works,  and  for  no  apparent 
reason  unless  it  was  that  his  disciples  might  believe  him 
to  be  the  Messiah,5  but  such  a  deed  is  fairly  excluded  by 
the  teaching  of  the  wilderness  experience.     It  may  be 

1  Mk.  9:32;  Lk.    18:34.  sMt.  14:28-33.  BMt.  14:33. 

2  E.g.,  I  Cor.  1:23.  4Mk.  6:45-5-2. 


LEGENDS  OF  THE  MINISTRY  OF  JESUS       263 

added  that  this  story  of  Peter's  adventure  is  evidently 
dependent  upon  the  view  that  Jesus  himself  was  at  that 
moment  walking  on  the  water,  for  had  Peter  supposed 
him  to  be  on  the  shore,  and  had  he  desired  to  reach  him, 
we  should  rather  have  expected  him  to  cast  himself  into 
the  water  and  swim  ashore1  than  request  Jesus  to  help 
him  out  miraculously.  But  if  there  is  no  sufficient  reason 
for  believing  that  Jesus  walked  on  the  water,  then  the 
other  and  dependent  story  must  be  regarded  as  a  legend. 

The  other  Matthaean  incident  which  belongs  here  is 
that  of  the  coin  in  the  fish's  mouth.2  Jesus  with  his 
apostles  had  come  down  to  Capernaum  from  the  region 
of  Caesarea  Philippi.  While  there,  Peter  was  approached 
by  those  who  collected  the  temple  dues  and  asked  whether 
his  teacher  did  not  pay  the  half-shekel.  Jesus,  cognisant 
of  what  had  taken  place,  anticipated  Peter's  request,  as 
he  came  up,  with  the  argument  that  kings  do  not  receive 
tribute  from  their  own  sons.  Then  he  added  that,  lest 
they  should  cause  others  to  "stumble,"  Peter  should  give 
the  collectors  a  shekel,  and  that  he  would  find  this  money 
in  the  mouth  of  the  first  fish  which  he  should  catch  in 
the  lake. 

The  difference  between  this  story  and  the  stories  of 
the  ordinary  mighty  works  of  Jesus  is  too  obvious  to  need 
much  comment.  It  is  the  difference  between  reason  and 
unreason,  between  a  sane  moral  method  and  an  arbitrary 
unmoral,  if  not  immoral,  one.  If  Jesus,  when  in  the 
wilderness,  refused  to  attempt  a  miracle  to  satisfy  his 
hunger,  or  even  to  assure  himself  of  God's  care  of  the 
Messiah,  we  cannot  believe  that  he  here  undertook  a 
miracle  to  pay  a  tax  of  some  thirty  cents  for  himself  and 
as  much  for  Peter.  The  thing  is  not  only  altogether 
inconsistent  with  his  action  in  the  wilderness,  but  it  is 
quite  devoid  of  any  adequate  ground.  Peter  could  easily 
earn  enough  to  pay  the  tax,  supposing — which  we  hardly 
have  a  right  to  do,  that  he  had  no  money  whatever,  not 
even  two  shillings;  not  only  so,  but  the  friends  who 
ministered  to  Jesus'  support  at  other  times  would  gladly 
have  served  him  in  this  trifling  need. 

*Cf.  Jn.  21:7.  3Mt.  17:24-27. 


264  THE   LEGENDARY   JESUS 

In  Luke's  peculiar  material  there  are  two1  incidents  of 
the  ministry  of  Jesus  which  belong  in  the  present  chapter. 
One  of  these  is  the  raising  of  the  son  of  a  widow  who 
lived  in  Nain.2  This  is  not  parallel  to  the  story  of  the 
daughter  of  Jairus.  Perhaps  the  incident  itself  was  like 
that,  but  the  present  story  is  different.  That  was  a  case 
of  resuscitating  a  person  wrongly  given  up  as  dead,  this 
a  case  of  restoring  the  dead  to  life.  The  young  man 
was  at  least  accounted  to  be  dead,  and  the  body  was 
being  borne  to  its  burial.  Jesus  came  nigh,  touched  the 
bier,  and  said,  "Young  man,  I  say  unto  thee,  arise."  It 
is  possible  that  he  saw,  as  in  the  case  of  the  daughter  of 
Jairus,  that  the  young  man  was  only  in  a  swoon,  or 
in  a  death-like  stupor.  This  supposition  is  somewhat 
strengthened  by  another  incident  which  Luke  gives  in 
his  second  "treatise."8  He  says  there  of  the  young  man 
Eutychus,  who  had  fallen  from  a  third-story  window, 
that  he  was  taken  up  "dead ;"  but  when  Paul  came  down 
stairs  and  saw  the  youth,  he  said,  "Make  ye  no  ado;  for 
his  life  is  in  him."  So  in  the  present  case,  though  Luke 
may  have  believed  that  the  young  man  was  dead,  Jesus 
may  have  perceived,  as  Paul  did  in  the  other  instance,  that 
death  had  not  come.  This,  we  say,  may  have  been  the 
actual  fact,  and  hence  what  Jesus  did  was  to  resuscitate 
a  person  who  lay  in  a  death-like  condition ;  but  the  nar- 
rative before  us  appears,  on  its  face,  to  tell  of  the  raising 
of  a  dead  man  to  life.  Can  we  accept  it  at  its  apparent 
face-value  ?  We  must  answer,  in  the  light  of  what  Jesus 
himself  says,  and  in  the  light  of  the  clearest  tradition  of 
his  work,  that  we  can  not.  Jesus  rejected,  in  the  wilder- 
ness, the  popular  Messianic  role,  and  chose  the  simple 
quiet  method  of  spiritual  influence.  He  refused  to  give 
the  Pharisees  "signs"  from  heaven.  But  what  more 
stupendous  "sign"  could  he  have  given  than  to  halt  a 
funeral  procession  and  by  a  mere  word  restore  the  dead 
to  life !     I  will  not  raise  the  idle  question  whether  Jesus 

1The  passage  22:43-44  is  not  taken  into  account  as  the  text  is  uncertain. 
— Lk.  10:1  and  17:11-19  are  possibly  legendary  development*  of  the  mission 
of  the  Twelve  and  the  cure  of  the  leper  in  Mk.  1 :40. 

3  Lk.   7:11-17. 

"Acts  20:9-12. 


LEGENDS  OF  THE  MINISTRY  OF  JESUS  265 

could  have  wrought  such  a  result ;  the  question  is  simply 
whether  our  sources  allow  us  to  believe  that  he  would 
have  done  it  To  this  question  we  must  give  a  negative 
reply.  It  remains  only  to  add  that  in  an  age  ignorant  of 
medicine,  which  was  also  a  wonder-loving  age,  it  would 
obviously  have  been  very  easy  to  make  out  of  the  resusci- 
tation of  a  person  who  seemed  to  be  dead  the  resurrection 
of  one  who  had  actually  expired. 

Luke's  second  incident  is  that  of  healing  the  high- 
priest's  servant.1  His  ear  had  been  severed  from  his 
head  by  a  blow  from  a  sword:  Jesus  "touched  his  ear 
and  healed  him."  The  verb  does  not  imply  that  Jesus 
gave  the  man  a  new  ear  in  the  place  of  the  one  cut  off. 
We  cannot  say  whether  the  writer  so  thought  of  the 
healing.  But  even  if  he  did  not  suppose  that  the  member 
was  restored,  he  certainly  thought  of  the  ugly  wound  as 
healed  by  a  touch.  The  objections  to  regarding  this  as 
historical  are  not  remote.  In  the  first  place,  Jesus  had 
for  weeks  systematically  refrained  from  his  customary 
"mighty  works."  Second,  those  mighty  works  were  con- 
ditioned on  faith  in  him ;  but  can  we  reasonably  suppose 
that  this  servant,  sent  with  others  to  arrest  Jesus  and 
now  maimed  by  one  of  his  disciples,  had  faith  in  him! 
That  is  surely  too  improbable  to  warrant  serious  con- 
sideration. Third,  the  mighty  works  of  Jesus  were  in- 
telligible; this  is  not.  Jesus  was  uniquely  equipped  to 
heal  the  body  through  the  mind;  we  have  no  evidence 
that  he  was  equipped  to  heal  the  body  in  any  other  way. 
In  restoring  the  body  through  the  mind,  as  in  restoring 
the  mind  itself,  he  acted  in  harmony  with  the  nature  of 
things;  but  in  staunching  the  flow  of  blood  by  a  touch 
and  healing  thus  the  wound  where  an  entire  member 
had  been  cut  off,  he  did  not  act  in  harmony  with  the 
nature  of  things,  but  rather  with  profound  disregard  of 
physical  laws. 

The  change  of  atmosphere  as  we  pass  now  from  the 
synoptic  story  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus  to  that  of  John 
is  unmistakably  announced  by  the  way  in  which  certain 
synoptic  incidents  are  here  retold.     The  first  of  these  is 

»Lk.  22:51. 


266  THE   LEGENDARY   JESUS 

the  account  of  the  cure  of  an  officer's  son  in  Capernaum.1 
That  this  is  a  variant  version  of  the  synoptists'  story  of 
the  healing  of  a  centurion's  servant  seems  to  be  required 
by  certain  conspicuous  points  of  agreement.  Thus  in 
both  cases  the  man  who  sought  help  was  a  foreigner,  in 
both  cases  he  was  located  in  Capernaum,  in  both  cases 
Jesus  was  at  a  distance  and  remained  at  a  distance  from 
the  man's  house,  and  in  both  cases  the  man,  though  a 
foreigner,  had  remarkable  trust  in  Jesus.  It  seems 
highly  improbable  that  there  were  two  foreign  officials 
in  Capernaum  whose  need,  whose  relation  to  Jesus,  and 
whose  approach  to  him  were  so  strikingly  alike.  But 
the  supernatural  element  in  the  later  story  marks  a 
decided  advance  upon  that  of  the  older  narrative.  Thus, 
in  Matthew  and  Luke,  Jesus,  though  at  a  distance  from 
the  centurion's  house,  is  yet  in  the  same  village  of  Caper- 
naum ;  in  John,  he  is  some  twenty  miles  away  in  Cana;  in 
Luke,  the  servant  was  found  whole  when  the  messengers 
returned;  in  John,  it  is  particularly  stated  that  just  when 
Jesus,  in  Cana,  spoke  the  healing  word,  the  fever  left  its 
victim  in  Capernaum ;  and  finally,  while  in  Matthew  and 
Luke  nothing  is  said  of  the  effect  of  the  cure  upon 
others,  it  is  said  in  John  that  the  man  and  his  whole  house 
"believed,"  that  is,  believed  in  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus 
— a  result  which,  in  the  synoptists,  is  never  said  to  follow 
a  cure. 

A  second  incident  which  is  signally  modified  in  John 
is  that  of  Jesus  walking  on  the  lake.2  We  will  note  here, 
as  in  the  other  case,  only  those  points  of  difference  which 
intensify  the  supernatural  element  of  the  story.  It  is 
said  that  the  disciples  had  rowed  twenty-five  or  thirty 
furlongs,  that  is,  approximately  half  way  to  Capernaum. 
Consequently  they  were  about  in  the  middle  of  the  lake 
with  reference  to  this  village  and  the  point  of  departure 
on  the  "other  side:"  they  were  halfway  across  where  the 
lake  is  about  eight  miles  wide.  Thus  the  writer  appears 
to  exclude  the  possibility  that  Jesus,  when  seen  by  the 
boat's  company,  was  walking  along  the  shore.    If  now 

*Jn.  4:46-54. 
2Jn.  6:16-21. 


LEGENDS  OF  THE  MINISTRY  OF  JESUS  267 

he  had  followed  in  their  wake,  he  had  walked  on  the 
water  twenty-five  or  thirty  furlongs ;  and  if  he  had  come 
out  to  them  from  the  nearest  point  of  the  shore,  he  had 
walked  nearly  as  far. 

Another  significant  point  in  John's  version  of  the 
incident  is  that  when  the  disciples  had  received  Jesus 
into  the  boat,  "straightway  the  boat  was  at  the  land 
whither  they  were  going."  The  winds  and  waves  are 
not  quieted,  but  the  boat  is  now  no  longer  hindered  by 
them.  Instantaneously  the  remaining  miles  of  water 
are  passed,  and  the  haven  is  reached. 

If  now  the  writer  of  the  last  Gospel  did  not  hesitate 
thus  to  heighten  the  supernatural  element  in  the  narrative 
of  these  synoptic  incidents  which  had  long  been  known 
in  the  churches  and  which,  we  should  suppose,  must 
have  been  regarded  as  somewhat  fixed,  it  would  not  be 
surprising  if,  in  handling  material  that  is  unknown  to 
the  synoptic  Gospels,  and  known  to  us  only  in  his  own 
version,  he  should  depart  even  further  from  the  early 
Gospels  in  the  matter  of  the  supernatural. 

There  are  four1  such  incidents  in  his  Gospel.  We  are 
here  concerned  with  these  incidents  not  as  the  vehicles  of 
ethical  or  spiritual  teaching,  but  merely  with  regard  to 
the  prior  question  whether  they  are  historical. 

There  is,  first,  the  changing  of  water  into  wine  at  a 
marriage  in  Cana  of  Galilee.2  Read  as  history,  this  in- 
volves us  in  a  hopeless  conflict  with  the  oldest  Gospel. 
We  will  not  dwell  upon  the  fact  that  Jesus  is  already  said 
to  have  had  "disciples,"  though  it  was  but  the  third  day 
since  he  had  left  the  Jordan,3  nor  upon  the  author's  state- 
ment that  the  turning  of  water  into  wine  was  the  first 
sign  of  Jesus,4  while  according  to  the  synoptists  the  first 
was  the  cure  of  a  demoniac  in  Capernaum  ;5  but  we  will 
come  at  once  to  matters  which  are  fundamental.  And 
first,  when  the  wine  provided  for  the  entertainment  failed, 
the  mother  of  Jesus  said  to  him,  "They  have  no  wine."6 
It  is  apparent  both  from  the  construction  which  Jesus  put 

JNot  including  that  of  the   supplementary   twenty-first  chapter. 
'Tn.  2:1-4.  *ln-  2:11.  6Jn.  2:3. 

•Jn.  2.u  •Mk.  1:23. 


268  THE   LEGENDARY   JESUS 

upon  these  words1  and  from  the  subsequent  remark  of 
Mary  to  the  servants2  that  she  meant  them  as  a  sugges- 
tion that  Jesus  should  intervene  in  a  supernatural  man- 
ner for  the  relief  of  the  painful  situation.  But  this  atti- 
tude of  Mary  is  excluded  by  the  representation  of  the 
oldest  Gospel,  according  to  which,  some  weeks  later  than 
the  marriage  in  Cana,  she  thought  her  son  was  "beside 
himself"  because  of  his  mighty  works  and  his  preaching.8 
The  two  attitudes  are  plainly  contradictory:  both  cannot 
be  historical.  If  Mary  expected  supernatural  help  from 
Jesus  in  Cana,  then  she  can  not  have  sought  to  interrupt 
his  work  a  few  weeks  later  when  he  was  relieving  far 
deeper  needs  than  the  need  of  wine  at  Cana,  and  was 
doing  it  in  part  by  mighty  works. 

Again,  it  is  said  that,  as  a  result  of  this  sign  at  Cana, 
the  disciples  of  Jesus  "believed"  on  him,4  that  is,  believed 
him  to  be  the  Messiah,  which  is  the  invariable  meaning 
of  the  term  in  the  Fourth  Gospel.  But  according  to  the 
synoptists  the  disciples  did  not  come  to  believe  in  Jesus 
as  Messiah  until  about  the  close  of  the  Galilean  ministry. 
These  representations  too  are  mutually  exclusive.  But  let 
us  come  now  to  the  "sign"  itself.  Six  stone  jars  were 
filled  with  water  at  Jesus'  command,5  and  when  their  con- 
tents were  tasted  by  the  ruler  of  the  feast  he  declared 
that  it  was  wine  and  more  choice  than  what  they  had 
already  drunk.6  The  author's  meaning  is  unmistakable: 
Jesus  was  equipped  with  omnipotence.  But  the  difficulty 
in  the  way  of  accepting  this  incident  is  insurmountable. 
Jesus  is  here  represented  as  acting  upon  a  principle 
which,  while  he  was  in  the  wilderness,  he  had  utterly 
rejected.  He  here  manifests  his  "glory"  by  a  stupendous 
sign,  that  is  to  say,  he  proceeds  in  exactly  the  way  in 
which  the  Messiah,  according  to  the  popular  expectation, 
was  to  proceed.  Not  a  word  is  said  of  teaching,  as 
though  it  too  were  a  part  of  his  "hour."7  His  "glory"  is 
manifested  exclusively  by  the  "sign,"  and  this  was  of  a 
character  fitted  to  overwhelm   the  beholder.     But  this 


1Tn.  2:4.  BJn.  2:6-7. 

aJn.  2:5.  «Tn.  2:10. 

•Mk.  3:21,  31.  TJn.  2:4. 


*Jru  2:1 


LEGENDS  OF  THE  MINISTRY  OF  JESUS  269 

method  of  reaching  the  Messianic  goal  was  regarded  by 
Jesus  in  the  wilderness  as  a  temptation  of  Satan. 

Now  it  is  impossible  that  Jesus  was  thus  fickle,  that  at 
one  time  he  most  positively  turned  from  a  certain  con- 
ception of  Messiahship,  and  again,  after  a  few  days,  acted 
on  that  very  conception  as  though  he  had  always  held  it. 
It  is  not  thus  that  he  came  to  the  spiritual  leadership  of 
the  world. 

Another  grave  difficulty  in  the  way  of  accepting  this 
incident  as  historical  is  that  it  implies  a  conception  of  the 
resources  of  Jesus  which  is  contradicted  by  the  Logia  and 
the  oldest  Gospel.  For  there,  as  has  been  shown,  his 
equipment  is  spiritual :  it  is  a  unique  knowledge  of  the 
character  of  God  and  the  conviction  of  a  unique  mission 
to  make  this  character  known;  but  here  we  are  made 
acquainted  with  an  extraordinary  equipment  which  is  not 
spiritual — an  equipment  of  almighty  power.  This  equip- 
ment follows  naturally  from  the  author's  general  view  of 
Jesus  as  the  incarnation  of  the  Logos,  but  it  is  just  as 
obviously  irreconcilable  with  the  view  of  the  oldest 
sources. 

The  second  of  the  four  incidents  under  discussion  is 
that  which  occurred  at  the  Bethesda  pool  in  Jerusalem.1 
This  was  a  water-cure,  and  a  multitude  of  sick  people 
were  present  in  the  porches  when  Jesus  visited  the  place. 
Some  were  blind,  some  lame  and  some  palsied.  One  man 
had  been  in  his  infirmity  thirty-eight  years.  Jesus 
singled  him  out  of  the  multitude,  and  asked  him  if  he 
would  be  made  whole.  The  man  did  not  say  yes,  but  told 
how  it  happened  that  he  had  not  yet  secured  health.  He 
was  always  a  little  late  in  reaching  the  pool  when  the 
water  was  "troubled,"  that  is,  when  it  had  curative  virtue. 
Jesus  then  told  him  to  arise,  take  up  his  bed,  and  walk, 
which  the  man  at  once  did. 

We  will  not  dwell  on  the  fact  that  our  synoptic  Gospels 
represent  Jesus  as  averse  to  working  so-called  "mighty 
works"  after  his  second  and  longer  visit  in  Capernaum, 
and  that  they  do  not  agree  in  locating  a  single  cure  in 

»Jn.  5:1-9. 


27O  THE   LEGENDARY    JESUS 

Jerusalem;  but  we  will  at  once  consider  some  points 
which  are  more  fundamental. 

First,  it  is  quite  strange  to  our  oldest  sources  that 
Jesus  should  take  the  initiative,  as  here,  and  ask  a  sick 
man  if  he  wished  to  be  made  whole.  According-  to 
those  sources,  Jesus  never  healed  except  as  people  came, 
or  were  brought,  to  him,  and  sought  healing.  That 
fact  is  in  obvious  accord  with  the  representation  of  the 
oldest  sources  that  Jesus  regarded  himself  primarily 
as  a  revealer  of  God  rather  than  as  a  healer  of  men's 
bodies.  For  him  to  go  into  a  hospital  or  water-cure 
and  ask  a  sick  man  if  he  wished  to  be  made  whole  was 
certainly  to  give  his  healing  ministry  a  new  and  striking 
prominence. 

Second,  the  representation  of  the  oldest  sources  is  that 
the  cures  of  Jesus  were  invariably  wrought  by  faith — 
faith  in  him  as  able  to  heal,  but  here,  in  the  Bethesda 
incident,  there  is  no  indication  whatever  that  the  sick 
person  had  faith  in  the  man  who  asked  him  the  strange 
question,  nor  is  there  the  slightest  trace  of  a  desire  on 
Jesus'  part  that  the  man  should  exercise  faith.  He 
simply  asked  him  if  he  wanted  to  be  made  whole. 

And  finally,  there  is  no  instance  in  the  oldest  sources 
where  Jesus  worked  incognito.  All  who  sought  his  help 
knew  him  as  Jesus,  the  teacher  and  healer.  But  here,  in 
the  Johannine  story,  he  is  a  total  stranger  to  the  man  who 
is  healed.  That  person  did  not  know  even  the  name  of 
his  benefactor.1  There  was  therefore  no  possibility  of  his 
being  affected  by  the  great  reputation  of  Jesus  as  a 
worker  of  cures. 

Now  these  three  striking  peculiarities  in  the  story  of 
the  Bethesda  cure  all  conspire  to  mark  it  off  as  a  work 
of  sheer  omnipotence.  Jesus  seeks  out  a  sick  man — the 
most  unpromising  case,  apparently,  in  the  entire  multi- 
tude of  sick  people  present,  for  the  man  had  been  thirty- 
eight  years  in  his  infirmity — and  without  making  himself 
known  and  without  the  aid  of  trust  on  the  part  of  the 
sick  man,  he  gives  him  the  gift  of  wholeness.  The 
entire  incident  is  thus  so  radically  unlike  the  typical  cures 

JJn.  5:13- 


LEGENDS  OF  THE  MINISTRY  OF  JESUS  2.J\ 

of  Jesus  according  to  the  oldest  sources  that  it  cannot  be 
accepted  as  on  the  same  plane  with  them. 

The  third  sign  peculiar  to  John  is  that  of  the  healing 
of  a  man  who  was  born  blind.1  As  in  the  Bethesda  inci- 
dent, so  here  also  Jesus  takes  the  initiative,  and  here  too 
nothing  is  said  of  trust.  Jesus  was  in  Jerusalem,  and 
seeing  a  blind  beggar,  he  took  him  in  hand  and  healed 
him.  The  incident  is  introduced  as  a  confirmation  of  the 
word  which  Jesus  had  just  spoken — "I  am  the  light  of 
the  world."2  The  man  knew  indeed  that  his  benefactor's 
name  was  Jesus,8  but  that  seems  to  have  been  all  that  he 
knew.  After  he  had  been  healed,  he  inferred  that  Jesus 
must  be  a  prophet,  and  when  Jesus,  a  little  later,  dis- 
closed to  him  that  he  was  the  Son  of  God,  he  promptly 
accepted  him  as  such.4 

One  feature  of  this  story  is  like  what  is  sometimes  met 
in  the  synoptists,  viz.  that  Jesus  made  use  of  physical 
means  in  healing  the  man,6  and  this  fact  may  suggest  a 
historical  nucleus.  But  this  feature  appears  to  be  out  of 
harmony  with  the  rest  of  the  story,  for  this  implies  that 
the  cure  depended  on  the  man's  obedience  to  the  word  of 
Jesus,  while  according  to  the  introduction  it  is  presented 
rather  as  an  illustration  of  his  sovereign  power.  As  re- 
gards this  feature  then  the  story  is  to  be  classed  with  the 
Bethesda  incident,  though  taken  as  a  whole  it  does  not 
depart  so  widely  from  the  synoptic  type. 

The  last  incident  which  we  have  to  consider  is  that  of 
raising  Lazarus.*  This  is  as  foreign  to  the  typical 
mighty  work  of  the  oldest  sources  as  are  the  Cana  and 
Bethesda  incidents.  Equally  with  the  Cana  incident  it 
runs  squarely  counter  to  the  Messianic  conception  which 
Jesus  adopted  in  the  wilderness.  He  there  rejected  the 
popular  conception  of  a  material  Messiahship  which  in- 
volved supernatural  manifestations,  but  here  he  delib- 
erately proceeds  to  the  most  stupendous  of  all  his  reputed 
signs,  and  does  it  that  men  may  believe  him  to  be  the 
Messiah.7     He  even  orders  his  course  to  the  end  that  the 


J  In.  9. 
'Jn.  9:5- 
•Jn.  9:11. 


*Jn.   9:35-38.  •Jn.    11:1-44. 

•See,  e.g.,  Mk.  8:23.         *  Jn.   11:15,  42. 


2J2  THE   LEGENDARY   JESUS 

impressiveness  of  the  sign  may  be  enhanced.  Thus  he 
remains  two  days  in  Perea  after  the  message  has  come 
from  the  sisters  of  Lazarus,1  and  at  the  tomb  the  thanks- 
giving to  the  Father  is  for  the  sake  of  the  multitude  who 
stand  by.2  This  feature  forms  as  sharp  a  contrast  as 
possible  to  the  synoptic  representation  that  Jesus,  even 
early  in  the  Galilean  ministry,  avoided  publicity  in  his 
mighty  works. 

The  contrast  of  results  is  also  most  striking.  Here 
many  of  the  Jews  were  brought  by  the  sign  to  a  belief  in 
the  Messiahship  of  Jesus,3  while  in  the  synoptic  narrative 
such  a  belief  is  never  said  to  have  resulted  from  the 
mighty  works  of  Jesus. 

The  deed  itself  forms  an  obvious  advance  on  the  inci- 
dent in  the  home  of  Jairus  and  that  outside  the  village  of 
Nain.  From  the  resuscitation  of  a  person  wrongly  sup- 
posed to  be  dead  we  pass  to  the  raising  of  one  who  was 
about  to  be  buried,  and  from  that  to  the  tomb  of  one  who 
had  been  dead  four  days.  Here  at  last  all  doubt  of 
Jesus'  power  to  raise  the  dead  is  to  be  obliterated.  This 
seems  to  be  the  purpose  of  the  narrative,  which  is  only 
another  way  of  saying  that  it  is  designed  as  an  illustra- 
tion of  the  truth  of  the  words  to  Martha,  "I  am  the 
resurrection  and  the  life."4  Those  words  are  beyond 
doubt  profoundly  true.  The  spirit  of  Jesus  has  raised  a 
considerable  portion  of  humanity  to  a  new  and  higher 
life,  and  we  who  follow  him  believe  that  this  spirit  will 
ultimately  elevate  the  entire  race.  But  the  illustration  of 
the  truth  of  these  words  which  we  have  in  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Lazarus,  when  studied  in  the  light  of  the  oldest 
sources,  cannot  be  regarded  otherwise  than  as  an  illustra- 
tion freely  constructed  for  the  purpose.  As  such  it  may 
well  have  been  effective  in  a  wonder-loving  age,  but  in 
an  age  which  is  beginning  to  reverence  the  Master  far 
more  than  it  reverences  any  man's  conception  of  the 
Master,  this  illustration  is  seen  to  obscure  and  confuse 
the  original  portrait. 

We  have  now  completed  our  survey  of  those  incidents 

*Jn.    11:6.  »Jn.    11:45. 

aJn.   11:4a.  «Jn.  11:25. 


LEGENDS  OF  THE  MINISTRY  OF  JESUS  273 

belonging  to  the  narrative  of  the  public  ministry  of  Jesus 
which,  judged  in  the  light  of  what  Jesus  said  of  himself 
and  his  mission,  in  the  light  also  of  the  typical  mighty 
works  which  he  wrought,  seem  to  us  to  be  predominantly 
legendary  in  character. 

We  have  seen  that  our  sources  reveal  with  perfect 
clearness  a  gradual  increase  in  the  amount  of  legendary 
matter,  and  to  some  extent  also  a  gradual  heightening  or 
intensification  of  the  legendary  character.  The  Logia- 
source  is  wholly  free  from  legendary  accretions.  This 
is  the  less  remarkable  of  course  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
it  is  a  collection  of  the  words  of  Jesus,  but  still  it  is  sig- 
nificant, for  it  is  not  exclusively  a  document  of  words  but 
contains  also  some  incidents,  and  what  is  more,  it  has 
references  to  the  character  of  Jesus'  ministry  which  are 
quite  as  important  for  the  point  under  discussion  as  any 
narrative  of  mighty  works  would  be.  Passing  from  the 
Logia  to  the  oldest  Gospel  we  find  some  legendary 
matter,  but  in  nearly  every  instance  the  historical  basis 
is  not  difficult  of  recognition.  This  group  of  passages 
may  be  illustrated  by  the  story  of  Jesus'  walking  on  the 
water.  Then  we  come  to  that  considerable  body  of 
material  which  is  peculiar  either  to  Matthew  or  to  Luke, 
and  we  find  here,  in  the  aggregate,  a  relatively  larger  ele- 
ment of  legendary  matter  and  it  is  also  of  a  more  intense 
sort.  This  class  may  be  illustrated  by  the  incident  of  the 
coin  in  the  fish's  mouth  and  the  story  of  Peter's  walking 
on  the  water.  Finally,  in  the  incidents  of  the  Johannine 
tradition,  we  have  the  widest  departure  from  the  oldest 
Gospel  both  in  the  relative  amount  of  legendary  matter 
and  in  its  character.  The  number  of  "signs"  is  less  than 
the  number  of  mighty  works  in  the  triple  tradition,  but 
the  relative  space  which  they  occupy  is  more  than  twice 
as  great  as  that  taken  by  mighty  works  in  Matthew  and 
is  slightly  greater  than  the  space  occupied  by  mighty 
works  even  in  Mark.1  The  most  striking  fact,  however, 
is  that,  whereas  less  than  twenty-five  per  cent,  of  the 

1  About  twelve  per  cent  of  Matthew's  Gospel  is  taken  up  with  mighty 
works  and  about  twenty-six  per  cent  of  Mark,  but  in  John  about  twenty- 
nine  per  cent  is  given  to  signs. 

18 


274  THE   LEGENDARY   JESUS 

mighty  works  in  Mark  need  be  regarded  as  showing  any 
influence  of  legend,  there  is  not  one  in  John  which  is  free 
from  such  influence.  In  character  also,  the  Johannine 
signs  depart  further  from  the  typical  mighty  works  of 
the  synoptists  than  do  the  legendary  incidents  that  are 
found  in  those  narratives.  This  is  seen  in  the  fact  that 
some  of  these  signs,  like  the  incident  of  the  raising  of 
Lazarus,  have  no  recognizable  historical  element,  while 
such  an  element  may  be  found  in  the  legendary  incidents 
of  the  synoptists,  even  in  the  incident  of  the  coin  in  the 
mouth  of  a  fish. 

In  closing  this  chapter  on  the  legendary  element  in  the 
narrative  of  the  public  ministry  of  Jesus  let  me  revert  to 
a  thought  expressed  at  the  outset,  that  loyalty  to  the 
Founder  of  our  faith  demands  such  an  investigation  as 
we  have  made.  It  is  not  a  matter  which  concerns  schol- 
ars alone.  If  the  conclusions  of  this  chapter  are  true, 
they  are  of  practical  importance  to  every  Christian 
disciple,  for  whatever  affects,  even  in  the  slightest  degree, 
our  conception  of  the  character  and  life  of  Jesus  thereby 
affects  the  central  historical  fact  in  our  religion.  If  the 
conclusions  of  this  chapter  are  valid,  then  our  sources  do 
make  possible  the  restoration  of  a  picture  of  the  activity 
of  Jesus  which  is  self-consistent  and  harmonious. 


CHAPTER  III 
THE  LEGEND  OF  A  MATERIAL  RESURRECTION 

What,  if  anything,  did  Jesus  ever  say  of  his  own 
resurrection?  The  oldest  source — the  Logia — is  silent 
on  this  question.  It  has  no  word  of  Jesus  either  regard- 
ing his  death  or  his  resurrection.1  This  is  remarkable  in 
view  of  the  large  place  which  the  story  of  his  resurrection 
has  occupied  in  the  life  and  teaching  of  the  Church.  But 
the  Logia  has  one  point  of  great  interest  respecting  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus.  This  is  Matthew's  version  of  the 
sign  of  Jonah.2  We  see  here  how  the  story  of  the  resur- 
rection of  Jesus  sought  for  justification  in  the  words  of 
Jesus,  which  he  had  spoken  while  on  earth.  There  can 
be  no  doubt  that  Luke  has  preserved  the  original  sense 
of  the  Master's  allusion  to  Jonah.3  But  this  was  not 
satisfactory  to  one  who  like  the  author  of  the  first  Gospel 
sought  to  establish  a  close  and  detailed  correspondence 
between  the  life  of  Jesus  and  the  Old  Testament.  He 
therefore  put  Jonah's  parallelism  to  Jesus  in  his  three 
days'  experience  in  the  belly  of  the  great  fish.4  True, 
this  did  not  exactly  agree  with  the  form  of  the  resurrec- 
tion story  which  he  in  common  with  Luke  adopted,  ac- 
cording to  which  the  Lord  rose  not  after  three  days  and 
three  nights  but  after  two6  nights,  yet  the  striking  pas- 
sage in  Jonah  could  not  be  disregarded  simply  on  account 
of  this  discrepancy. 

Thus  our  oldest  source  not  only  gives  no  word  of 
Jesus  in  regard  to  his  own  resurrection,  but  it  seems  to 
contain  in  Matthew's  version  of  the  words  about  Jonah 

1  Sec  pp.  22-23    on  Mt.  12:38-42. 
3Mt.   12:38-42. 

•  See  pp.  22-23. 

*  Jonah   1:17. 

•Jesus  was  crucified  on  Friday  and  his  resurrection  is  placed  on  Sunday 
morning. 

275 


2f6  THE   LEGENDARY   JESUS 

clear  evidence  of  an  early  attempt  to  supply  the  lack  of 
authentic  teaching  on  this  point. 

When  we  come  to  the  triple  tradition  we  find  two 
classes  of  utterances  of  Jesus  in  regard  to  his  fate.  We 
have,  in  the  first  place,  a  number  of  plain  allusions  to  his 
death  unaccompanied  with  any  reference  to  resurrection. 
Thus  in  the  defence  of  his  disciples,  when  they  disre- 
garded the  customary  fasts,  he  likened  them  to  the  sons 
of  the  bride-chamber,  and  said  that  days  would  come 
when  the  bridegroom  would  be  taken  from  them.1  Again, 
on  the  last  evening,  in  the  disclosure  of  the  traitor,  he 
said,  'The  Son  of  Man  goes,  as  it  has  been  written  con- 
cerning him."2  Later,  during  the  supper,  he  alluded 
variously  to  his  death."* 

But,  in  the  second  place,  we  find  other  passages  in 
which  the  thought  of  death  is  followed  by  that  of  resur- 
rection. There  are,  as  is  well  known,  three  of  these  pas- 
sages. Of  these  three  the  first4  which  for  that  very 
reason  must  be  supposed  to  have  impressed  itself  most 
deeply  on  the  minds  of  the  hearers,  does  not  attempt  to 
give  the  very  words  of  Jesus,  but  only  the  substance  of 
what  he  said.  And  even  in  regard  to  this  there  seems  to 
have  been  no  certain  knowledge,  no  fixed  tradition,  for 
the  version  of  Matthew  and  Luke  departs  from  that  of 
Mark,  being  influenced  apparently  by  the  story  of  the 
resurrection.  Instead  of  Mark's  "three  days,"  Matthew 
and  Luke  have  the  "third  day,"5  and  instead  of  Mark^s 
active  verb  "rise,"  they  have  the  passive  "be  raised."8 
The  former  detail  accords  with  the  story  of  the  resurrec- 
tion according  to  which  Jesus  was  buried  Friday  at 
evening  and  arose  early  on  the  second  morning  there- 
after; and  the  use  of  the  passive  by~Matthew  and  Luke 
agrees  with  the  view,  clearly  expressed  in  Matthew 
(28:2),  that  the  resurrection  was  initiated  and  carried 
out  from  above.     But  since  the  second  and  third  evan- 

1  Mk.  2:20;  Mt.  9:15;  Lk.   5:35. 

2  Mk.  14:21;  Mt.  26:24;  Lk.  22:22. 

s  Mk.  14:22,  25;  Mt.  26:26,  29;  Lk.  22:19,  18. 

*  Mk.  8:31;  Mt.   16:21;  Lk.  9:22. 

5  Mt.   16:21;  Lk.  9:22. 

e  Mk.  has  ava<rn)v<u.,  Matthew  and  Luke  have  iytp0^yat.. 


LEGEND  OF  A  MATERIAL  RESURRECTION  277 

gelists  handled  this  part  of  the  earliest  narrative  with 
such  freedom,  we  must  conclude  that  for  them  and  the 
circles  which  they  represented  there  was  no  explicit  word 
of  Jesus  touching  his  bodily  resurrection. 

There  is  moreover  in  the  earliest  Gospel  itself  evidence 
that  what  Jesus  said  of  his  "resurrection"  was,  at  the 
time,  unintelligible  to  the  disciples.  It  is  said,  after  the 
second  announcement  of  death  and  resurrection,  that  they 
understood  not  the  saying  and  feared  to  ask  about  it.1 
This  word  naturally  reflects  how  the  matter  appeared  to 
them  in  later  times,  in  the  light  of  the  resurrection  story. 
Evidently  what  Jesus  had  said  did  not  point  necessarily 
to  an  empty  grave  and  an  obvious  victory  over  death, 
for  in  that  case  they  would  not  have  "feared,"  but  would 
have  rejoiced. 

We  are  then  at  liberty  to  ask  what  Jesus  meant  by  his 
word  about  rising  after  three  days,  and  the  narrative  of 
the  oldest  Gospel  does  not  leave  us  helpless.  It  contains 
another  word  of  Jesus  which  throws  light  on  this  saying 
about  a  resurrection  after  three  days. 

Soon  after  the  first  announcement  of  death,  or  perhaps 
on  the  same  occasion  when  that  was  made,  Jesus  said 
that  some  of  those  present  should  not  taste  death  until 
they  should  see  the  kingdom  of  God  manifested  in  power.2 
He  had  spoken  of  his  death,  he  had  spoken  of  the  hard 
way  his  disciples  must  go,  but  another  scene  arose  before 
his  inner  eye,  a  scene  of  victory.  And  the  reality  was 
not  far  removed ;  some  of  those  present  would  live  to  see 
it. 

Now  by  this  passage  we  may  interpret  that  other  of 
which  it  is  said  that  the  disciples  did  not  understand  it 
and  were  afraid  to  make  inquiry.  There  as  here  Jesus 
spoke  of  his  death,  and  then  of  a  rising  after  three  days. 
This  number  may  have  been  used  by  him,  as  it  is  often 
used  in  Scripture,8  to  denote  the  full  or  appointed  time, 
and  thus  it  would  agree  with  the  statement  of  time  in 
Mk.  9:1.  The  "rising" — if  we  define  it  by  the  clearer 
word  of  Mk.  9:1 — is  the  opposite  of  defeat :  it  is  triumph, 

1  Mk.  9:32;  Lk.  9:45. 

'Mk.  9:1.  3  Ex.  2:2;  Josh.  2:22;  I  Kings  12:5;  Is.  20:3. 


278  THE    LEGENDARY    JESUS 

here  his  personal  triumph ;  and  there  is  no  distinction  to 
be  made  between  that  and  the  powerful  establishment  of 
the  kingdom  of  God. 

Turning-  from  the  Logia  and  the  triple  tradition  to  cer- 
tain material  which  is  common  to  Mark  and  Matthew, 
there  are  two  passages  to  be  considered.  First,  there  is 
the  word  spoken  in  Bethany,  on  the  occasion  of  his  being 
anointed.1  Jesus  said  that  what  the  woman  had  done,  who 
poured  the  precious  ointment  on  his  head,  was  in  prepara- 
tion for  his  "burial."  The  word  does  not  imply,  of 
course,  that  no  further  funeral  rite  would  be  given  to  his 
body,  but  it  does  seem  to  imply  that  the  speaker  thought 
of  his  body  as  about  to  share  the  fortune  common  to  all 
bodies  from  which  the  spirits  have  departed. 

In  striking  contrast  with  this  saying  is  the  second  to 
which  reference  was  made.  After  Jesus  with  his  disciples 
had  left  the  upper  room,  on  the  last  night,  he  is  said  to 
have  announced  that  all  would  be  "offended" — all  those 
who  were  with  him — and  then  to  have  quoted  Zechariah 
13:7  in  support  of  this  word.2  Over  against  this  sad 
discomfiture  and  scattering  of  the  disciples  another  and 
comforting  scene  is  depicted  in  the  words:  "Howbeit 
after  I  am  raised  up  I  will  go  before  you  into  Galilee." 

There  are  some  weighty  reasons  for  regarding  this 
passage  in  Mark  as  a  late  addition  from  Matthew — a 
case  of  the  assimilation  of  one  narrative  to  the  other. 
First,  it  is  characteristic  of  Matthew  to  point  out  detailed 
agreement  between  the  life  of  Jesus  and  Old  Testament 
passages,  while  in  Mark  this  feature  is  quite  inconspic- 
uous. Indeed  it  is  doubtful  whether  there  is  a  single 
passage  in  Mark — the  present  being  excepted — in  which 
Jesus  himself  points  to  a  particular  Scripture  as  fulfilled 
in  him.3  The  second  reason  is  that,  while  in  the  three 
passages  where  all  the  synoptists4  refer  to  a  resurrection, 
Mark  always  uses  one  Greek  word  (  avLo-rrjfu  )  and  Mat- 
thew always  another  (  iyeipm  ),  here  Mark  has  Matthew's 

*Mlc.  14:8;  Mt.  26:12. 
2Mk.  14:27;  Mt.  26:31. 

8  Mk.    14:21   does  not  refer  to  any  particular  O.  T.  word  and   14:62  does 
not  quote  Daniel  though  alluding  to  it.     Mk.   12:10  is  a  possible  exception. 
♦Except  Luke  9:44. 


LEGEND  OF  A  MATERIAL  RESURRECTION  279 

term.  And  finally,  it  is  only  Matthew's  Gospel  that  has 
a  resurrection  story  in  harmony  with  this  reputed  saying 
of  Jesus.  His  one  appearance  of  the  risen  Jesus  to  the 
apostles  is  in  Galilee.1 

For  these  reasons  we  regard  Mark  14:27-28  as  an  in- 
stance of  the  late  conformation  of  his  narrative  to  that  of 
Matthew.  Now  the  difficulty  of  regarding  the  passage 
as  a  genuine  saying  of  Jesus  is  very  great,  if  not  insur- 
mountable. It  is  hard  to  believe  that  Jesus,  had  he  ex- 
pected to  renew  his  bodily  fellowship  with  his  disciples 
after  his  death,  would  have  alluded  to  this  great  expec- 
tation but  once,  and  then  in  an  incidental  manner.  More- 
over the  word  seems  unintelligible.  Why  should  he 
precede  the  disciples  in  returning  to  Galilee,  and  why 
return  to  Galilee  at  all?  It  is  impossible  to  answer  these 
questions.  We  can  understand  them  as  the  evangelist's 
own  introduction  to  the  appearance  of  Jesus  in  Galilee — 
an  appearance  which  he  alone  records — but  we  cannot 
understand  them  as  spoken  by  Jesus. 

Our  examination  of  the  sources  has  led  to  this  result, 
that  Jesus  said  nothing  of  a  resurrection  of  his  body  from 
the  grave.  The  word  about  "rising  after,  three  days," 
interpreted  in  the  light  of  a  kindred  saying"  refers  not  to 
the  fortunes  of  his  physical  body  but  tothe  triumph-Qlliis 
cause,  the  establishment  of  the  Kingdom  of  God.  It  is 
perhaps  conceivable  that  Jesus  may  have  been  inwardly 
assured  of  his  bodily  resurrection  and  yet  for  some 
reason  have  said  nothing  of  it  to  his  disciples,  but  it  is 
at  least  very  improbable.  Consideration  for  his  friends 
would  have  been  a  strong  inducement  to  lead  him  to 
share  with  them  this  great  assurance,  if  he  had  possessed 
it.  Therefore  we  come  to  the  story  of  the  bodily  resur- 
rection of  Jesus  with  a  distinct  presumption  against  its 
historicity,  which  presumption  is  based  on  the  silence  of 
Jesus.  Presumption,  however,  is  not  proof,  and  the  story 
still  demands  investigation. 

The  resurrection  story  of  the  oldest  Gospel — seemingly 
incomplete  since  it  announces,  but  does  not  record,  an 

*Mt.  28: 16. 


28o  THE   LEGENDARY   JESUS 

appearance  of  the  risen  Jesus1 — consists  of  only  eight 
verses,  which  may  conveniently  be  divided  into  an  intro- 
duction,2 the  approach  to  the  tomb,8  the  scene  in  the  tomb,4 
and  the  flight  from  the  tomb.5  The  introduction  names 
the  women  who  came  to  the  tomb,  specifies  the  time  when 
they  bought  spices  and  the  use  they  purposed  to  make  of 
them.  As  they  approached  the  tomb,  they  expected  to 
find  the  door  closed  with  the  great  stone,  and  were  sur- 
prised6 to  find  the  stone  rolled  back. 

The  scene  in  the  tomb  is  the  center  of  the  story.  On 
their  entrance  into  the  sepulchre  the  women  saw  an  angel 
— described  as  "a  young  man  in  a  white  robe" — and  were 
amazed.  He  soothed  their  amazed  spirits,  and  told  them 
that  Jesus  whom  they  were  seeking  was  risen,  and  called 
their  attention  to  the  place  where  men  had  laid  him. 
Then  he  sent  them  to  announce  to  the  disciples  and  Peter: 
"He  goes  before  you  into  Galilee;  there  shall  ye  see  him, 
as  he  told  you."  Following  this  word,  the  women  fled 
from  the  tomb,  for  trembling  and  astonishment  had  come 
upon  them.  Moreover  they  said  nothing  to  anyone,  for 
they  were  afraid. 

These  last  two  clauses  are  somewhat  vague.  For  how 
long  a  time  did  they  keep  their  secret,  and  what  was  it 
that  they  "feared"?  Certainly  the  writer  did  not  mean 
that  the  secret  had  never  been  told  until  he  wrote  his 
narrative.  The  Greek  tense  used  does  not  allow  that 
view.7  We  may  suppose  that  this  was  the  writer's 
thought,  viz.  that  the  women,  though  bidden  by  the  angel 
to  make  an  announcement  to  the  disciples,  did  not  at  once 
carry  out  this  injunction.  The  ground  of  their  silence 
was  an  undefined  dread.  The  author  may  have  sup- 
posed that  they  were  afraid  to  tell  what  they  knew  lest 
they  should  be  regarded  as  having  lost  their  wits,  or  he 
may  have  meant  merely  that  the  trembling  and  astonish- 

^ik.  16:7. 

2Mk.   16:1. 
sMk.    16:2-4. 
<Mk.    16:5-7. 
BMk.   16:8. 

0  Surprise  is  involved  in  the  words:   "looking  up  they  see  that  the  stone 
is  rolled  hack;   for  it  was  exceeding  great." 
7  It   is   the   aorist,   not   the   perfect. 


LEGEND  OF  A  MATERIAL  RESURRECTION  28 1 

ment  which  had  come  upon  them  in  the  tomb  made  it, 
temporarily,  impossible  for  them  to  tell  what  had  been 
told  them. 

So  far  the  oldest  Gospel.  Had  we  only  this  narrative 
of  Mark  we  should  be  much  at  a  loss  what  to  believe. 
We  can  hardly  avoid  asking  whether  it  is  intrinsically 
probable.  Thus,  for  example,  isJ£j3robable_that  women 
who  realised  that  they  could  not  roll  back^He  stone  from 
the  tomb  would  have  gone  thither  aktM  on  an  errand 
requiring  admission  to  the  tomb?  One  of  the  number 
was  Salome,  whose  sons  James  and  John  were  in  the  city, 
and  not  only  in  the  city  but  very  probably  lodging  in  the 
same  house  with  her.  Again,  is  it  quite  probable  that 
a  supernatural  being  would  have  appeared  to  the  women 
in  the  tomb  merely  to  repeat  to  them  what  Jesus  had 
already  said?1  Then  too,  as  the  disciples  were  sure  to 
return  to  their  native  Galilee  and  were  there  to  see  Jesus 
for  themselves,  what  need  was  there  of  a  supernatural 
messenger  to  inform  them,  by  way  of  the  women,  that 
the  word  of  Jesus  would  there  be  fulfilled  ?  Finally,  is 
it  probable  that  three  women,  friends  of  Jesus,  would 
Have  kept  to  themselves  the  joyous  announcement  of  an 
angel  that  their  Master  was  risen  and  was  to  be  seen  in 
Galilee  ?  Would  they  not  rather  havejirged  the  disciples 
to  start  at  once,  that  they  might  see  "tHefulfilment  of  this 
angelic  promise  ? 

But  turning  from  these  intrinsic  difficulties  of  the  nar- 
rative, which  appear  serious,  we  pass  on  to  consider  how 
Matthew  and  Luke  handled  the  same  incident.2  An 
examination  of  this  point  will  show  the  state  of  the  tradi- 
tion when  these  Gospels  arose. 

Omitting  all  merely  formal  details,  Matthew's  narra- 
tive, which  is  a  trifle  shorter  than  Mark's,  agrees  with  it 
in  five  points  and  differs  from  it  in  seventeen.  Luke's 
narrative,  which  is  a  little  longer  than  Mark's,  agrees 
with  it  in  six  points  and  differs  from  it  in  ten  or  eleven. 
The  difference  between  Luke's  narrative  and  that  of 
Matthew  is  a  little  greater  than  the  difference  between  it 

»Mk.  14:28. 

aMt.  28:110;  Lk.  24:1-7. 


282  THE   LEGENDARY   JESUS 

and  Mark,  there  being  here  four  points  of  agreement 
and  some  fourteen  of  disagreement. 

Thus  the  three  narratives  of  the  same  incident  reveal  a 
measure  of  disagreement  which  is  without  parallel  in  the 
story  of  any  part  of  the  public  ministry  of  Jesus.  But 
something  more  than  a  numerical  statement  is  needed  in 
order  to  set  forth  the  remarkable  character  of  the  unlike- 
ness  between  the  various  synoptic  accounts  of  the  visit 
which  certain  women  made  to  the  tomb  of  Jesus  early  on 
Sunday  morning. 

The  main  points  in  which  they  all  agree  are  that  at  least 
two  women  went  to  the  sepulchre,  that  they  found  the 
stone  rolled  back,  and  that  they  received  there  an  angelic 
announcement  that  Jesus  was  risen.  This  is  the  extent 
of  their  common  element.  We  come  next  to  the  differ- 
ences, and  first  to  those  between  Matthew  and  Mark. 
Matthew  says  that  the  women  came  to  the  tomb  "late  on 
the  Sabbath  day,"1  Mark  that  it  was  on  the  first  day  of 
the  week  ;2  Matthew  says  that  they  came  to  see  the  tomb,s 
making  no  reference  at  all  to  spices,  Mark  that  they  had 
bought  spices  in  order  that  they  might  anoint  the  body;4 
in  Matthew  the  angel  who  speaks  to  the  women  is  seated 
on  the  stone,5  in  Mark  he  is  in  the  tomb;6  in  Matthew  the 
women  do  not  enter  the  tomb,7  in  Mark  they  do  ;8  accord- 
ing to  Matthew  the  message  of  the  angel  contains  the 
words,  "He  is  risen  from  the  dead,"0  which  are  not  in 
Mark;  Matthew  says  that  the  women  went  away  with 
fear  and  great  joy,10  Mark  that  "trembling  and  astonish- 
ment" came  upon  them  ;J1  and  finally,  according  to  Mat- 
thew the  women  ran  to  tell  the  disciples,12  while  according 
to  Mark  they  said  nothing  to  any  one.13  Of  lesser  sig- 
nificance is  the  fact  that  Matthew  omits  the  name  of 
Salome,  and  instead  of  "Mary  the  mother  of  James"  has 
the  singular  expression  "the  other  Mary."  Apparently 
this  means  "the  other  Mary"  mentioned  in  Mark,  for  the 

xMt  28:1.  *Mk.   16:2.  »Mt.  28:1. 

*Mk.    16:1.  6Mt.  28:2.  8Mk.   16:5. 

7  When  the  angel  finishes  speaking,  the  women,  go  aivay  from  the  tomb, 
not  out  of  it. 

8Mk.   16:5,  8.  »Mt  28:7.  10Mt.   28:8. 

a  Mk.  16:8.  "Mt.  28:8.  "Mk.  16:8. 


LEGEND  OF  A  MATERIAL  RESURRECTION  283 

Gospel  story  knows  of  two  others  by  that  name.1  Mat- 
thew has  a  great  earthquake,2  which  is  seemingly  caused 
in  some  manner  by  the  angel,  either  by  his  descent  out  of 
heaven3  or  by  his  rolling  back  the  stone.  To  be  noticed 
also  is  the  inversion  of  the  Marcan  clauses  in  the  mes- 
sage of  the  angel,  "He  is  risen ;  he  is  not  here."4  Accord- 
ing to  Matthew  the  angel  said,  "He  is  not  here,  for  he  is 
risen."5  This  is  not  simply  an  inversion,  but  also  a  log- 
ical modification.  The  thought  in  the  foreground  is  that 
Jesus  was  not  there,  to  which,  by  way  of  explanation,  is 
added  the  statement  that  he  is  risen.  His  body  might 
have  been  absent  from  the  tomb  because  it  had  been  taken 
away.6  This  possibility  the  author  excludes  in  saying, 
"He  is  not  here,  for  he  is  risen" 

It  is  not  necessary  to  dwell  at  greater  length  on  these 
differences.  It  is  obvious  that  the  two  stories,  though 
having  a  common  element,  are  mutually  exclusive.  They 
cannot  be  maintained  side  by  side.  They  do  not  explain 
or  supplement  each  other.  They  are  rather  contradictory. 
If  the  women  came  late  on  the  Sabbath,  it  was  not  the 
first  day  of  the  week;  if  they  received  the  angelic  mes- 
sage outside  the  tomb,  they  did  not  receive  it  within  the 
tomb;  and  if  they  said  nothing  to  any  one,  they  did  not 
run  to  tell  the  disciples.  It  is  evident  that  the  writer  of 
the  first  Gospel  did  not  feel  himself  bound  by  the  narra- 
tive of  Mark.  He  appears  to  deal  with  the  incident  as 
freely  as  a  poet  deals  with  a  given  historical  theme. 

Consider  next  the  narrative  of  Luke  in  its  departure 
from  Mark.  Instead  of  three  women  who  sought  the 
tomb  there  are  in  Luke  not  only  three  but  an  indefinite 
number  more;7  instead  of  one  angel  in  the  tomb  there 
are  here  two;8  instead  of  seeing  the  angel  at  once  on 
entering  the  tomb,  the  women  are  first  aware  that  the 
body  of  the  Lord  is  gone,  and  only  then,  while  perplexed 
thereabout,  do  they  see  the  angels ;°  instead  of  reminding 
the  women  of  the  saying:  "He  goeth  before  you  into 

1  See  Mlc.  6:3;  Lk.  10:39.— Jn.  19:25  appears  to  give  yet  another  Mary. 
3Mt.  28:2.  'See   Mt.   28:13. 

•Analogous  to  Ex.   19:18.  7  Lk.  24:40. 

«Mk.   16:6.  »Lk.  24:4. 

•Mt.  28:6.  »Lk.  24:3,  4, 


284  THE   LEGENDARY   JESUS 

Galilee;  there  shall  ye  see  him,"  the  angels  here  remind 
them  of  an  entirely  different  word  of  Jesus,  viz.  that  the 
Son  of  Man  must  be  delivered  into  the  hands  of  men  and 
be  crucified  and  the  third  day  rise  again;1  and  finally, 
instead  of  saying  nothing  to  any  one,  they  tell  every- 
thing to  all  the  disciples.2 

It  is  obvious  that  these  two  stories  also,  though  having 
a  common  element,  are  mutually  exclusive.  The  point 
which  is  perhaps  of  the  greatest  significance  is  that  Luke 
drops  the  promise  of  Jesus  to  precede  his  disciples  into 
Galilee,8  and  lets  the  angel  confirm  his  statement  that 
Jesus  is  risen  by  reference  to  another  word  of  the 
Master.4  Thus  even  the  angelic  message,  which  is  the 
center  of  the  story  in  each  of  the  synoptists,  is  freely 
modified.  In  Mark  and  Matthew  the  main  point  in  the 
message  of  the  angel  is  that  the  disciples  shall  see  Jesus 
in  Galilee;  in  Luke  it  is  to  remind  the  women  of  what 
Jesus  had  said  while  still  in  Galilee. 

We  have  thus  far  noticed  the  stories  of  Matthew  and 
Luke  in  relation  to  that  of  Mark.  It  remains  to  add  that 
the  differences  between  these  two  are  also  not  merely 
formal.  If  Luke  departs  from  Mark  in  that  he  has  two 
angels  instead  of  one,  he  also  departs  from  Matthew  in 
that  his  two  angels  are  in  the  tomb  while  that  of  Mat- 
thew is  outside.  While  in  Matthew  the  angel  is  appar- 
ently on  the  earth  for  the  sake  of  opening  the  tomb,  in 
Luke  the  two  angels  appear  to  be  present,  especially  if 
not  exclusively,  for  the  sake  of  the  perplexed  women. 
The  significant  difference  between  the  message  of  the 
angel  in  Luke  and  his  message  in  Matthew  is  essentially 
the  same  as  that  between  Luke  and  Mark,  which  has 
already  been  discussed.  Luke  agrees  with  Matthew 
against  Mark  that  the  women  carried  out  the  injunction 
of  the  angel  (or  angels),  but  differs  from  him  in  being 
more  circumstantial. 

So  far  the  analysis  of  the  oldest  sources  in  regard  to 

1  Lk.  24:7. 

2  Lk.   24:9. 

3  Luke  has  no  appearance  of  Jesus  in  Galilee. 

*  It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  angel  does  not  give  this  according  to  Luke's 
version  but  rather  according  to  that  of  Matthew   (20:19). 


LEGEND  OF  A  MATERIAL  RESURRECTION  285 

what  transpired  at  the  tomb  of  Jesus  on  the  morning  of 
the  first  day  of  the  week,  the  third  day  after  the  crucifix- 
ion. The  conclusions  to  which  this  analysis  leads  are 
( I )  that  the  story  of  the  oldest  Gospel  was  handled  with 
great  freedom  by  both  Matthew  and  Luke;  and  (2)  that 
the  mutual  exclusiveness  of  the  three  synoptic  narratives 
shows  that  when  these  originated  there  was  no  standard 
tradition  concerning  the  incident  of  the  women  at  the 
tomb. 

The  question  therefore  naturally  arises  what  historical 
value  belongs  to  the  common  element  in  these  strangely 
conflicting  stories.  Let  that  common  element  be  again 
stated.  It  is  that  at_Jeast_two  women  went  to  the  tomb 
of  Jesus  on  the  third  day  after  his  death,  that  they  found 
the  stone^olled_back,  and  that  they  received  there  an 
angelic  announcemfintTlo  the  effect  that  Jesus  was  risen. 
ThTsmucesdiffer  sharply  as  to  why  the  women  went  to 
the  sepulchre,  Matthew  saying  that  it  was  to  view  the 
tomb,  Mark  and  Luke  representing  that  it  was  to  anoint 
the  body  of  Jesus,  but  all  agree  that  they  went.  All  agree 
also  that  Mary  Magdalene  and  another  person  by  the 
name  of  Mary  visited  the  tomb.  The  oldest  Gospel  seems 
to  know  of  only  three  who  went  while  Luke,  after  naming 
three,  refers  to  "the  other  women"  with  them.  Further, 
the  women  found  the  tomb  open — the  stone  rolled  away. 
On  this  the  narratives  are  at  one.  The  oldest  Gospel 
does  not  suggest  how  the  stone  came  to  be  removed  from 
its  place,  no  more  does  Luke,  but  Matthew  attributes  it 
to  an  angel. 

Thus  we  face  a  serious  problem.  The  women  found 
the  tomb  open,  but  the  only  suggestion  in  our  sources  as 
to  how  it  came  to  be  open  is  that  an  angel  did  it.  And 
from  this  point  on  the  story  runs  into  the  supernatural. 
We  have  one  angel  or  two  angels,  outside  the  tomb  or 
within  it,  and  their  message  is  variously  reported.  Ac- 
cording to  the  oldest  Gospel,  which  is  followed  by  Luke, 
the  women  entered  the  tomb,  and  so  were  presumably  able 
to  confirm  the  angelic  word,  "He  is  not  here."  But  in 
view  of  the  general  contradictoriness  of  the  three  narra- 
tives it  is  perhaps  too  much  to  say  that  we  can  here 


286  THE   LEGENDARY   JESUS 

confidently  accept  the  statement  of  Mark  and  Luke  that 
the  women  entered  the  tomb.  If,  however,  they  did, 
the  fact  that  they  found  not  the  body  of  Jesus  is  only 
what  the  open  door  has  already  suggested.  But  the 
main  point  is  that  their  testimony  goes  no  further  than — 
to  say  the  most — an  open  and  empty  tomb.  That  Jesus 
had  risen  was  the  word  of  the  angel.  Here  again,  what- 
ever we  may  think  about  angels  as  witnesses  to  earthly 
and  material  facts,  we  face  a  serious  problem.  For  the 
narratives  are  so  contradictory  that  it  is  impossible  to 
see  behind  them  any  definite  witness  to  an  objective 
angelic  appearance.  One  is  therefore  led  to  ask  whether 
the  angel  is  not  a  literary  device  by  which  the  writers 
sought  to  express  the  divine  origin  of  a  new  and  inspir- 
ing belief.  This  supposition  would  at  least  account  for 
the  variations  in  the  angelic  message  in  the  different 
Gospels. 

But  however  this  point  be  judged,  we  must  not  lose 
sight  of  the  simple  fact  that,  so  far  as  the  story  of  the 
resurrection  is  concerned,  our  sources,  when  they  come 
to  the  explanation  of  the  empty  tomb,  give  us  the  word 
of  an  angel.  We  arc  then  no  longer  dealing  with  ordi- 
nary evidence,  with  human  witnesses  and  natural  facts 
— such  as  we  find  exclusively  in  the  record  of  the  min- 
istry of  Jesus — but  we  are  dealing  with  another  order  of 
beings,  belonging  to  another  sphere. 

Jesus  himself  does  not  appear  in  the  story  of  the- 
resurrection.  We  have  a  report  of  an  open  and  probably 
of  an  empty  tomb,  but  on  the  question  what  had  become 
of  the  body  of  Jesus  we  have  a  message  attributed  to  an 
angel,  or  to  angels,  who  are  variously  said  to  have  been 
in  the  tomb  or  outside  it.  It  does  not  then  appear  that 
more  can  be  accepted  as  historical  than  that  the  tomb  of 
Jesus  was  found  empty.  This,  however,  is  a  point  of 
great  importance  both  in  itself  and  in  relation  to  sub- 
sequent events. 

We  now  pass  beyond  the  oldest  Gospel  and  the  story 
of  the  open  tomb  to  consider  other  material  in  Matthew 
and  Luke  which  has  to  do  with  the  risen  Lord. 

Matthew  records  two  appearances  of  Jesus,  one  to  the 


LEGEND  OF  A  MATERIAL  RESURRECTION  287 

women  near  the  tomb1  and  the  other  to  the  eleven  dis- 
ciples in  Galilee^  To  the  women  he  said:  "Fear  not;  go 
tell  my  brethren  that  they  depart  into  Galilee,  and  there 
shall  they  see  me."  This  event  is  beset  with  difficulties. 
The  women  have  just  been  told  by  an  angel  that  Jesus 
precedes  the  disciples  into  Galilee,  and  that  they  shall 
see  him  there.3  Why  then  should  it  be  needful  that  the 
same  message  be  given  them  by  Jesus?  And  if  Jesus 
was  to  tell  them,  what  necessity  was  there  for  the  appear- 
ance of  an  angel  to  give  them  the  very  same  message? 
Moreover,  if  Jesus  could  appear  to  the  women,  near  the 
tomb,  why  not  also  to  his  apostles?  Why  postpone  that 
great  event  until  they  returned  to  Galilee? 

There  is  yet  other  difficulty  created  by  this  passage. 
It  conflicts  with  the  oldest  Gospel  and  is  excluded  by 
Luke.  For  Mark's  statement  that  the  women  said  noth- 
Injpto  any  one4  certainly  precludes  the  possibility  that, 
in  the  moment  after  leaving  the  tomb,  they  had  an  unmis- 
takable meeting  with  Jesus,  when  they  took  hold  of  his 
feet  and  heard  words  from  his  lips.  It  is  also  excluded 
by  Luke's  narrative,  for  according  to  him  the  women 
went  at  once  to  the  apostles  and  told  what  they  had 
learned  at  the  tomb;  but  if  they  had  met  Jesus  himself 
as  they  returned  from  the  tomb,  they  must  have  reported 
that  fact,  for  it  wholly  eclipsed  the  other  in  importance. 
But  Luke's  narrative  has  no  trace  of  this  superlatively 
significant  event. 

We  seem  forbidden  therefore  to  regard  this  passage 
in  Matthew  as  strictly  historical.  The  purpose  of  the 
author  in  writing  it  appears  to  be  obvious.  His  eye  is 
upon  the  Galilean  manifestation  of  Jesus5 — the  sole  ap- 
pearance to  the  apostles  which  he  records — and  the 
importance  of  that  manifestation  is  heightened  by  letting 
Jesus  refer  to  it  in  advance. 

We  turn  now  to  this  conspicuous  Galilean  appearance 
of  the  risen  Jesus,  which  is  peculiar  to  Matthew.  The 
oldest  Gospel  anticipated  something  of  the  sort,6  but  in 

»Mt  28:9-10.  «Mk.   16:8. 

aMt.  28:16-20.  6Mt.  28:16-20. 

•ML  28:7.  •Mk.   16:7. 


288  THE    LEGENDARY    JESUS 

its  extant  form  does  not  record  it.  Let  us  consider  the 
details  of  the  story  with  a  view  to  determining  its  his- 
torical character.  First,  it  is  said  that  the  particular 
mountain  where  the  Eleven  assembled  had  been  ap- 
pointed for  them  by  Jesus.1  But  we  have  seen  above 
that  our  oldest  sources  do  not  contain  a  single  indisput- 
able reference  by  Jesus  to  a  bodily  resurrection  and  return 
to  his  disciples.  Hence  this  view  of  Matthew  that  the 
very  spot  where  the  risen  Jesus  would  meet  his  disciples 
had  been  fixed  by  him  has  against  it  the  lack  of  a  single 
confirmatory  word  in  the  body  of  the  Gospel.  It  seems 
remarkable,  too,  that  if  the  very  spot  had  been  fixed  by 
Jesus  himself,  it  should  have  been  necessary  to  send  an 
angelic  message  to  the  apostles  to  go  into  Galilee,2  and 
then  to  reen  force  this  angelic  message  by  a  word  from 
Jesus  to  the  same  effect.3  One  would  naturally  suppose 
that  if  Jesus  had  told  his  disciples  that,  when  risen,  he 
would  meet  them  on  a  certain  mountain  in  the  home-land, 
they  would  have  needed  no  command  to  go  thither. 

Second,  the  words  attributed  to  the  risen  Jesus  at  this 
appearance  in  (ialilee.4  Does  the  story  of  the  life  and 
teaching  of  Jesus  allow  us  to  regard  these  words  as 
genuine?  Let  us  see.  Is  it  like  Jesus  to  claim  all 
authority  in  heaven  and  on  earth?5  In  the  oldest  collec- 
tion of  his  words — the  Logia — the  highest  claim  that  he 
makes  is  the  claim  to  a  unique  knowledge  of  God.0  As 
for  authority,  he  had  authority  to  teach,7  authority  to  for- 
give sin,8  and  authority  to  cast  out  demons0 — that  is,  he 
had  authority  adequate  to  his  need  as  the  revealer  of 
God ;  but  of  all  authority,  and  all  authority  in  heaven  as 
well  as  on  earth,  the  record  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus  con- 
tains no  claim  and  no  trace  of  a  claim.  On  the  contrary, 
the  true  and  absolute  dependence  of  Jesus  upon  the 
heavenly  Father  is  fundamental  in  all  that  record. 

Again,  is  it  like  Jesus  to  base  the  mission  of  his  disciples 
lMt.  28:16.  aMt-  28:7#  »Mt.  28:IO- 

4  It  is  worth  noting  that  the  Greek  word  for  "doubt"  in  vs.  17  (itivrasar) 
is  found  only  here  and  in  Mt.  14:31 — a  passage  which  is  certainly  to  be 
regarded    as   legendary. 

6Mt.  28:18.  »  >rk.  2:10. 

6  Alt.    11:27;  Lk.   10:22.  3Mk.  6:7. 

7Mk.   1:22. 


LEGEND  OF  A  MATERIAL  RESURRECTION  289 

in  the  world  upon  his  own  authority  f1  Was  not  his 
principle  rather  this:  "Freely  ye  received,  freely  give"?2 
Did  he  not  think  of  his  Gospel  as  a  seed  which  when 
planted  in  the  heart  inevitably  develops,  irrespective  of 
all  external  authority  ?  Did  he  not  think  of  it  as  "leaven,"3 
as  something  whose  very  nature  compelled  it  to  expand 
until  it  should  touch  all  the  world  ? 

Third,  is  it  like  Jesus  to  command  baptism?4  The 
record  of  his  ministry  contains  no  word  about  the  baptism 
of  his  disciples.  Further,  that  record  does  make  mem- 
bership in  his  kingdom  depend  exclusively  upon  inward 
spiritual  conditions.  In  the  face  of  this  perfectly  explicit 
historical  teaching  the  post-resurrection  command  in 
Matthew's  narrative  cannot  be  defended  as  genuine. 

This  impossibility  is  intensified  by  the  formula  of  bap- 
tism which  is  here  ascribed  to  Jesus,  which  is  that  the 
nations  be  baptized  into  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of 
the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit.5  The  thought  of  this 
formula  is  certainly  not  after  the  manner  of  Jesus.  For 
by  placing  the  Son  between  the  Father  and  the  Holy 
Spirit  the  writer  doubtless  meant  to  claim  that  he  has 
the  same  essential  nature  as  they,  that  he  is  in  the  same 
sense  and  same  degree  divine.  But  neither  in_  the  Logia, 
the  triple  tradition  or  the  critically  establishe^^rngTe~ffa- 
(fitions  of  MaffHew  and  Luke  is  there  one  word  of  Jesus 
to  justify  this  claim.6  It  obviously  belongs  to  a  time 
later  than  the  apostolic  age,7  when  men  had  not  only 
begun  to  speculate  on  the  relation  of  Jesus  to  God — for 
there  is  speculation  on  this  subject  in  Paul — but  when 
their  speculations  had  assumed  a  definite  trinitarian 
formulation. 

Again,  in  the  fourth  place,  is  it  like  Jesus  to  refer  to  his 
communications  to  his  disciples  as  commands?6  The  verb 
which  Matthew  here  uses  ( ivr&Xeo-Oai)  is  never  used  by 
Jesus  in  regard  to  his  own  teaching.  He  spoke  of  the 
commands  of  God  in  the  Old  Testament,9  but  he  did  not 

*Mt.  28:19.  *Mt  28:19. 

aMt.  10:8.  BMt.  28:19. 

»Mt.  13:3^.  "See  Part  II,  chaps.  3-4. 

T  Baptism  in  the  apostolic  age  was  into  the  name  of  Tcsus  only. 

•Mt.  28:20.  •E.g.,  Mk.  7:8;   10:19. 

19 


29O  THE   LEGENDARY   JESUS 

add  to  them.  He  conceived  of  himself  not  as  a  second 
Moses,  imposing  upon  men  a  legal  form  of  religion,  but 
rather  as  a  communicator  of  life  to  man's  spirit  by  reveal- 
t  ing  the  character  of  God. 

Finally,  is  it  like  Jesus  to  say,  "I  am  with  you  all  the 
days,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world"  P1  Certainly  the 
record  of  his  ministry  does  not  offer  any  parallel.  On 
the  contrary,  it  presents  a  teaching  which  is  opposed  to 
this  word.  Thus,  at  the  feast  in  Bethany,  Jesus  said  to 
his  disciples,  "The  poor  ye  have  always  with  you,  but  me 
ye  have  not  always."2  In  the  parable  of  the  Talents3  he 
alluded  to  a  period  when  he  should  be  absent  from  his 
disciples.  lie  referred  repeatedly  to  his  death  and  de- 
parture from  the  world,4  but  never,  unless  we  except  this 
passage  in  Matthew,  to  a  resumption  of  personal  fellow- 
ship with  the  disciples  on  earth.  Hence  we  must  regard 
the  closing  promise  in  Matthew's  Gospel  as  a  word  born 
out  of  the  spiritual  experience  of  the  early  Church. 

We  come  now  to  our  conclusion  regarding  the  character 
of  the  passage  before  us.  Since  the  reference  to  a 
rendezvous  on  a  mountain  in  Galilee  is  at  variance  with 
the  record  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus,  and  since  the  words 
attributed  to  him  are  throughout  contrary  to  the  clear 
facts  and  teaching  of  his  public  life,  we  cannot  regard 
the  passage  as  historical. 

We  turn  now  to  Luke,  who  describes  two  appearances 
of  Jesus  and  alludes  to  a  third.  All  are  put  on  the  day 
of  the  resurrection,  the  two  that  are  fully  described 
occurring  toward  night.  To  begin  with  the  incident  to 
which  only  an  allusion  is  made.  When  the  two  disciples 
came  into  Jerusalem  from  Emmaus,  at  evening  of  the  day 
of  the  resurrection,  and  found  the  apostles  gathered 
together,  they  were  greeted  with  the  words :  "The  Lord  is 
risen  indeed,  and  hath  appeared  to  Simon."5  Let  two 
points  be  briefly  noted  here.  First,  we  have  an  alleged 
appearance  of  Jesus  to  Simon  in  or  near  Jerusalem, 
though  the  angelic  message  to  the  women  at  the  tomb, 

1  Mt.   28:20.  «  Sec  p.  276. 

•Mk.   14:7.  »Lk.  24:34. 

"Mt.  25:14-30. 


LEGEND  OF  A  MATERIAL  RESURRECTION  29I 

according"  to  Mark,  implies  that  the  disciples — and  so  of 
course  Peter — will  see  him  only  in  Galilee,  and  though, 
according  to  Matthew,  Jesus  himself  sent  word  to  the 
disciples  that  they  should  depart  into  Galilee  where  they 
should  see  him.  This  point  will  demand  further  consid- 
eration later.  Second,  the  Greek  word  here  employed 
by  Luke  (<o<f>&rj),  which  is  rendered  by  "appeared,"  is 
used  by  him  elsewhere  in  ten  passages  to  designate  spirit- 
ual appearances  or  visions.1  This  usage  is  uniform 
unless  Acts  7 126  be  an  exception.  It  is  used  of  the  mani- 
festation of  God  to  Abraham  and  of  the  angel  of  the  Lord 
to  Zechariah  in  the  temple,  also  of  the  appearance  of  the 
heavenly  Christ  to  Paul  on  the  way  to  Damascus.  There- 
fore, from  the  term  used,  we  should  infer  that  what  came 
into  Simon's  experience  on  the  day  of  the  resurrection 
was  a  "heavenly  vision."  The  writer  seems  at  least  to 
regard  this  vision  toTeter  as  proof  that  Jesus  was  indeed 
"risen,"  though  to  us  it  is  evidence  only  that  he  was 
alive,  and  implies  nothing  in  regard  to  his  physical  body. 
That  Peter's  vision  was  psychologically  dependent  upon 
the  women's  report  of  the  empty  tomb  may  be  surmised, 
but  obviously  cannot  be  proved. 

The  story  of  the  appearance  of  Jesus  to  two  disciples 
as  they  went  to  Emmaus  has  several  new  features.  Thus, 
first,  Jesus  walked  and  talked  with  them  a  long  time 
unrecognized.  He  interpreted  to  them  in  "all  the  Scrip- 
tures the  things  concerning  himself/*  but  still  they  did 
not  recognize  him.  Finally,  when  in  the  house  at 
Emmaus,  he  blessed  the  bread  and  breaking  it  gave  to 
them,  their  eyes  were  opened  and  they  knew  him.2  The 
difficulty  here  is  that  the  story  presupposes  an  intimate 
acquaintance  on  the  part  of  these  two  disciples  with  the 
last  supper  which  Jesus  observed  with  his  apostles;  but 
is  it  at  all  likely  that  this  event,  celebrated  only  three 
days  before,  had  already  been  made  known  to  other 
disciples  outside  the  apostolic  circle,  and  so  made  known 
that  by  its  means  they  could  recognize  the  Master,  even 
when  his  interpretation  of  Scripture  failed  to  make  him 

*Lk.  1:11;  9:31;  Acts  2:3;  7:2,  3°.  35;  9-^7i  10:31;  16:19;  36:16. 
*Lk.  24:31. 


292  THE   LEGENDARY   JESUS 

known  ?  Let  it  be  remembered  that  one  of  the  interven- 
ing days  was  a  Sabbath  and  the  other  the  awful  day  of 
the  crucifixion.  This  detail  suggests  that  we  are  dealing 
with  a  free  composition. 

Again,  in  this  story  of  the  Emmaus  appearance,  Jesus 
is  subject  and  also  not  subject  to  physical  laws.  He 
walked  and  talked,  sat  down  and  broke  bread,  as  a  true 
corporeal  being;  but  at  the  close  of  the  interview  he 
"vanished"  (  afavTos  iycvcro ) .  He  did  not  depart  as  a 
creature  of  flesh  and  blood,  but  simply  faded  out,  became 
invisible  as  mist  vanishes  in  the  air.  Thus  he  is  repre- 
sented as  a  being  of  whose  body  we  can  form  no  true 
conception.  We  know  physical  bodies  and  laws,  we  can 
conceive  of  a  body  that  is  not  subject  to  physical  laws,  but 
we  are  helpless  in  view  of  the  problem  presented  by  a 
body  which,  at  will,  is  subject  to  physical  laws  and  then, 
at  will,  is  not  subject  to  them.  It  is  of  course  not  to  be 
declared  impossible  simply  because  it  is  inconceivable  by 
us,  for  many  actual  things  are  yet  inconceivable ;  but  we 
may  demand  the  strongest  evidence  in  support  of  an 
alleged  reality  so  astounding  as  a  body  which  is  subject 
and  again  not  subject  to  physical  laws. 

Once  more,  when  we  try  to  take  this  story  as  history, 
we  are  embarrassed  by  the  conception  that  Jesus,  while 
walking  with  these  men  toward  Emmaus,  would  have 
spoken  of  having  entered  into  his  glory.1  These  words, 
interpreted  by  other  passages  in  Luke,2  lead  us  away  from 
earth  and  earthly  relationships  to  heaven  and  the  con- 
summation of  the  kingdom  of  God.  We  should  have  no 
difficulty  whatever  in  supposing  that  early  Christians 
argued  in  the  very  words  of  this  verse,  but  can  we  sup- 
pose that  Jesus  would  have  talked  of  himself  as  having 
entered  into  his  glory,  while  he  was  yet  present  on  earth  ? 
Finally,  it  is  not  after  the  manner  of  Jesus  to  argue  his 
case  "from  Moses  and  from  all  the  prophets."  That  was 
what  Paul  did  with  the  Jews  in  Rome,3  and  what  no 
doubt  other  Christian  teachers  did  in  those  days,  but  it 

1Lk.  24:26. 

2  See  9:26;  21:27. 

"Acts  28:23. 


LEGEND  OF  A  MATERIAL  RESURRECTION  293 

was  not  the  manner  of  Jesus.  He  rested  indeed  upon  the 
revelation  of  God  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  he  saw 
there  foreshadowings  of  himself,  even  of  his  death;  but 
as  a  teacher,  as  the  revealer  of  God,  he  certainly  spoke 
out  of  his  own  spiritual  experience.  That  was  why  he, 
in  contrast  to  the  scribes,  impressed  men  as  speaking-  with 
authority.1  This  picture  of  him  on  the  way  to  Emmaus 
"beginning  from  Moses  and  from  all  the  prophets  and 
interpreting  in  all  the  Scriptures  the  things  concerning 
himself"  is  a  picture  of  a  Christian  rabbi  of  the  first  cen- 
tury, drawn  to  the  life ;  but  Jesus  was  not  a  rabbi. 

Luke's  other  story  of  an  appearance  of  the  risen  Jesus 
presents  several  distinctly  new  aspects.  It  was  the  even- 
ing of  the  day  of  the  resurrection.2  The  eleven  apostles 
and  those  with  them,  as  also  the  two  disciples  just  come 
from  Emmaus,  were  together.8  As  the  two  from  Em- 
maus related  their  experience,  Jesus  himself  stood  in  the 
midst  of  them.  Undoubtedly  the  writer  thought  of  his 
coming  as  mysterious  and  inexplicable.  The  disciples 
did  not  hear  him  come  or  see  him,  but  all  at  once  he  was 
there!  This  coming  corresponds  to  his  departure  from 
the  two  disciples  in  Emmaus.  It  is  no  wonder  that  the 
disciples  inferred  from  the  mode  of  his  appearance  that 
what  they  saw  was  a  "spirit."4  Hence  their  terror — a 
feature  wholly  lacking  in  Matthew's  story  of  the  appear- 
ances of  Jesus,  and  lacking  also  in  Luke's  other  story. 

Another  new  element  in  this  passage  is  that  Jesus 
offered  various  proofs  that  he  was  not  a  spirit.  "See 
my  hands  and  my  feet,"  he  said,  "that  it  is  I  myself: 
handle  me  and  see ;  for  a  spirit  hath  not  flesh  and  bones, 
as  ye  behold  me  having."  And  a  little  later  he  said: 
"Have  ye  here  anything  to  eat?  And  they  gave  him  a 
piece  of  a  broiled  fish.  And  he  took  it  and  ate  before 
them."5  Thus  he  demonstrated  to  them  his  materiality. 
By  so  doing  the  mystery  of  his  appearing  in  the  midst  of 
them  is  affirmed  and  emphasized.  Having  demonstrated 
his  materiality,  as  though  his  teaching  would  not  other- 

1  Mk.  1:22.  4Lk.  24:37. 

*Lk.    24:29,   33.    36.  eLk.  24:39,  41,  42. 

•Lie  24:  33,  35,  36. 


294  THE   LEGENDARY   JESUS 

wise  be  valid,  he  proceeded  to  say  certain  things  to  his 
disciples,  which  we  shall  now  consider. 

The  difficulties  of  this  address,  regarded  as  history,  are 
these :  First,  the  clause  "while  I  was  yet  with  you."1  But 
he  was  with  them  now,  and  had  just  given  an  ocular 
demonstration  that  it  was  he  himself.  These  things 
obviously  do  not  accord  with  each  other.  Second,  the 
verse  affirms  that  Jesus,  during  his  ministry,  had  told 
his  disciples  that  "all  things  which  are  written  in  the  law 
of  Moses  and  the  prophets  and  the  psalms"  concerning 
him  must  needs  be  fulfilled ;  but  our  sources  do  not  con- 
tain this  or  any  similar  statement.  It  is  quite  different 
from  the  thought  of  Mt.  5:17,  and  goes  beyond  Mk.  14  149. 
Third,  Jesus  is  here  represented  as  finding  in  Scripture 
the  following  points  of  doctrine :  that  the  Oirist  should 
suffer,  that  he  should  rise  again  from  the  dead  the  third 
day,  and  that  repentance  should  be  preached  in  his  name 
unto  all  the  nations,  beginning  from  Jerusalem.2  But  the 
record  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  is  unfavorable  to  the 
acceptance  of  the  second  and  third  of  these  points  as 
really  from  him.  The  oldest  Gospel  does  indeed  attribute 
to  him  a  saying  about  "rising"  after  three  days,  but  it  does 
not  define  this  "rising"  as  a  rising  from  the  dead;  and 
reason  has  elsewhere  been  given  for  believing  that  the 
original  saying  was  spiritual  in  character.3  As  to  the 
third  point,  it  is  not  borne  out  by  the  teaching  of  Jesus. 
It  is  possible  that  he  told  his  disciples  to  preach  repent- 
ance,4 though  even  this  is  not  specifically  recorded ;  but 
there  is  no  evidence  in  the  Gospel  that  he  told  them  to 
preach  "in  his  name."  Least  of  all  is  the  record  of  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  favorable  to  the  view  that  he  bade  his 
disciples  "begin  from  Jerusalem."  He  gave  them  prin- 
ciples, not  specific  directions.  We  say  then  that  the 
record  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  is  distinctly  unfavorable 
to  the  acceptance  of  the  second  and  third  points  as  from 
him. 

We  conclude  then  that  verses  46-47  are  more  easily 
understood   as   a   resume   of   early   Christian   preaching 

*  Lk.  24:44-  "See  p.  277. 

-  Lk.  24:46-47.  «See  Mk.  6:12. 


LEGEND  OF  A  MATERIAL  RESURRECTION  295 

than  as  spoken  by  the  risen  Jesus.  They  are  in  this 
respect  parallel  to  the  words  spoken  to  the  two  disciples 
on  the  way  to  Emmaus. 

It  remains  to  consider  the  last  words  attributed  to 
Jesus  on  the  occasion  of  his  appearance  to  the  eleven  and 
others  in  Jerusalem:1  "I  send  forth  the  promise  of  my 
Father  upon  you:  but  tarry  ye  in  the  city  until  ye  be 
clothed  with  power  from  on  high."  The  difficulty  in 
accepting  these  words  as  historical  is  not  less  serious 
than  is  that  of  the  preceding  verse.  The  Gospel  story  of 
the  teaching  of  Jesus  says  nothing  about  a  promise  of  the 
Father  which  was  to  be  sent  upon  the  disciples,  and  yet 
the  speaker  seems  to  take  for  granted  that  the  allusion 
will  be  understood.  There  is  of  course  no  doubt  that  the 
writer  had  the  Holy  Spirit  in  mind  as  the  "promise"  of 
the  Father,2  but  one  must  ask  whether  his  conception 
agrees  with  what  Jesus  said  of  the  Spirit  in  the  course  of 
his  ministry.  In  the  very  little  that  he  ever  said  on  the 
subject  according  to  the  oldest  sources  the  Spirit  is 
regarded  by  him  as  it  was  by  the  great  prophets.3  It  is 
God  as  he  comes  into  contact  with  man.  It  seems  then 
unlikely  that  Jesus  would  ever  speak  of  sending  this 
Spirit. 

But  again  it  may  be  seriously  questioned  whether  it 
was  in  harmony  with  the  thought  of  Jesus  as  revealed  in 
the  Gospel  to  represent  his  disciples  as  unfit  for  their 
ministry  until  they  should  be  "clothed  with  power  from 
on  high" — this  being  thought  of  as  something  quite  dis- 
tinct from  the  preparation  he  had  given  them.  Had  they 
not  gone  forth  in  Galilee  and  cast  out  demons?  Had 
they  not  in  their  souls  the  words  of  Jesus  and  the  example 
of  his  life  and  the  consciousness  of  his  love?  Did  they 
not  know  his  spirit  and  how  to  gain  it,  and  was  it  not 
that  spirit  which  changed  their  lives  and  is  it  not  that 
which  is  changing  the  world?  Was  it  not  a  "clothing 
with  power"  to  live  and  walk  and  work  with  Jesus? 

*Llc  34:49. 
a  See  Acts  2:1-41. 

•See  Mk.  12:36;  13:11. — The  Logia  has  no  reference  to  the  Spirit  unless 
it  be  in  Mt.   12:28  (cf.  Lk.   11:20). 


296  THE    LEGENDARY   JESUS 

The  conclusion  to  which  we  are  led  in  regard  to  this 
passage  is  that,  like  Mt.  28:16-20  and  Lk.  24:25-27,  it  is 
a  carrying  back  to  Jesus  of  early  Christian  reflections 
on  his  death  and  resurrection  and  on  the  spiritual  power 
of  believers.  But  it  does  not  follow  that  the  account  of 
the  appearance  of  Jesus  is  without  historical  value.  That 
might  be  a  reliable  tradition  even  though  the  address  put 
in  the  mouth  of  Jesus  were  regarded  as  the  work  of  the 
author  of  this  Gospel.  Whether  the  tradition  of  his  ap- 
pearance is  reliable  we  do  not  yet  attempt  to  say. 

We  must  first  consider  the  closing  paragraph  of  the 
story  and  certain  other  data  which  lie  outside  the  Gospel. 
According  to  the  closing  paragraph  Jesus  parted  from 
his  disciples  "over  against  Bethany"  on  the  evening  of 
the  resurrection  day.1  They  "returned  to  Jerusalem  with 
great  joy,  and  were  continually  in  the  temple  blessing 
God."  It  seems  plain  that  in  the  thought  of  the  author 
such  appearances  of  Jesus  as  he  had  recorded  were  now 
at  an  end.  But  when  we  open  his  second  volume — the 
Book  of  Acts — we  hear  that  the  appearances  of  the  risen 
Jesus  were  not  confined  to  one  day  but  continued  "by  the 
space  of  forty  days,"2  and  that  instead  of  a  simple  vanish- 
ing from  them,3  he  ascended  into  heaven  in  a  visible  form 
and  a  cloud  received  him  out  of  their  sight.4  What  is  the 
significance  of  this  diversity  of  view?  It  is  thought  by 
some  scholars  that  in  the  interval  between  the  composition 
of  the  Gospel  and  of  Acts  the  author  came  into  possession 
of  fresh  material  and  that  he  accordingly  modified  his 
first  view.  Whether  this  was  the  case  or  not,  such  vary- 
ing accounts  point  to  the  absence  of  any  fixed  tradition 
in  the  church  of  the  apostles.  We  should  notice  here  a 
further  illustration  of  this  fact.  As  we  have  seen,  Mat- 
thew's Gospel  knows  of  only  one  appearance  of  the  risen 
Jesus  and  that  was  on  a  mountain  in  Galilee  which  had 
been  specially  designated  by  the  Master.  Moreover,  that 
appearance  in  Galilee  was  apparently  regarded  by  the 
author  as  the  final  one.  But  Luke,  on  the  other  hand, 
tells  of  three  appearances  of  the  risen  Jesus,  and  all  were 

1  Lk.   24:50-51.  8  Lk.  24:51. 

2  Acts  1 13.  *  Acts  1 .9. 


LEGEND  OF  A  MATERIAL  RESURRECTION  297 

in  or  near  Jerusalem,  Luke's  third  appearance  was  appar- 
ently regarded  by  him  as  the  final  one  (i.e.,  when  he  wrote 
the  Gospel),  and  yet  the  words  attributed  to  Jesus  on  that 
occasion  are  wholly  different  from  those  attributed  to  him 
in  Matthew.  Further,  all  of  Luke's  appearances  of  the 
risen  Jesus  were  on  the  day  of  the  resurrection,  while 
Matthew's  appearance  on  a  mountain  in  Galilee  could 
not  have  been  earlier  than  the  third  day  after  the  resur- 
rection. Thus  these  narratives  are  at  all  points  mutually 
exclusive. 

Having  now  before  us  all  the  data  of  the  synoptists 
on  the  subject  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  let  us  take  into 
account  the  words  of  Paul,  written  some  years  earlier 
than  the  oldest  Gospel. 

Paul  was  either  not  acquainted  with  the  story  of  the 
women  at  the  tomb  or  else  was  not  interested  in  it,  for  he 
passes  it  in  silence.  His  interest  lay  in  the  appearance 
of  the  risen  Jesus  to  his  disciples.  Of  these  appearances 
he  mentions  five,  and  in  the  alleged  order  of  their  histor- 
ical occurrence.  He  has  no  word  of  time  or  place, 
whether  the  appearances  were  on  one  day  or  during 
forty  days,  whether  in  Galilee  or  in  Judea,  or  in  both. 
Nor  does  he  say  a  word  of  the  nature  of  these  appear- 
ances except  as  a  suggestion  is  contained  in  the  single 
term  "appeared"  (i^tfi/).1  This  is  the  term  he  used  when 
speaking  of  the  appearance  of  Jesus  to  himself  on  the 
way  to  Damascus,2  an  appearance  which  he  described  as 
a  "heavenly  vision,"8  a  revealing  of  the  Son  of  God  in 
him.*  Paul  does  not  claim  to  have  seen  the  risen  Jesus 
with  the  eye  of  flesh,  but  only,  according  to  Luke,  to 
have  seen  a  great  light  which  blinded  him.5  The  appear- 
ance of  Jesus  to  the  Twelve  and  to  others  Paul  classed 
with  his  appearance  to  him.  But  this  appearance — a 
heavenly  vision  and  a  revelation  in  him — obviously  does 
not  require  the  resurrection  of  the  physical  body  of  Jesus, 
and  Paul's  chapter  on  the  resurrection  appears  to  imply 
that  it  did  not  rise.8 

*I  Cor.   15:5,  6,  7-  *Gal.  1:15. 

aI  Cor.  15:8.  — •Acts  9:3;  22:6;  26:13. 

•Acta  26:19.  — "I  Cor.  15:44,  50. 


298  THE   LEGENDARY   JESUS 

One  point  to  be  specially  noted  is  that  Paul's  five 
appearances  include  two  which  are  foreign  to  the  Gospel 
narrative — viz.  those  to  James  and  to  above  five  hundred 
brethren — and  two  whose  identification  with  appearances 
described  in  the  Gospels  is  more  or  less  doubtful,  leaving 
only  one,  that  to  Cephas,  which  is  surely  found  in  the 
synoptists.  That  one  of  his  five  appearances  which  seems 
altogether  the  most  important,  viz.  the  appearance  to 
more  than  five  hundred  brethren  at  once,  of  whom  the 
greater  part  were  alive  when  Paul  wrote  First  Corinth- 
ians, is  wanting  in  Matthew  and  Luke. 

We  conclude  that  the  data  of  Paul  help  to  confirm  two 
points :  first,  that  there  was  no  fixed  tradition  in  the  early 
Church  regarding  the  appearances  of  Jesus,  and  second, 
that  the  appearance  of  Jesus  was  visionary  in  its  nature. 

We  ask  in  the  next  place  what  bearing  the  Johannine 
tradition  has  on  these  data  of  the  synoptists  and  Paul.  It 
describes  four  appearances  of  the  risen  Jesus  with  a  good 
deal  of  detail.  The  first  was  to  Mary  Magdalene  at  the 
tomb  in  the  morning  of  the  day  of  the  resurrection.1 
This  agrees  with  the  synoptic  story  of  the  women  at  the 
sepulchre  in  three  points,  viz.,  that  Mary  Magdalene  came 
to  the  tomb,  that  she  came  early  in  the  morning,  and  that 
she  found  the  stone  taken  away;  but  it  differs  from  the 
synoptic  tradition  in  three  important  particulars.  Thus 
it  has  no  clear  trace  that  anyone  was  with  Mary  Magda- 
lene ;  she  does  not  enter  the  tomb,2  as  do  the  women  in 
Mark  and  Luke,  one  of  whom  is  this  same  Mary  Magda- 
lene; she  infers  from  the  opened  tomb  that  the  body  of 
Jesus  has  been  removed  ;s  and  she  receives  no  angelic 
message  that  Jesus  has  risen,  as  she  does  according  to 
all  the  synoptists.  Further,  it  differs  from  Mark  in  that 
Mary  reports  the  open  tomb4  and  later  the  appearance  of 
Jesus,5  while  there  she  and  others  said  nothing  to  any- 
one ;  and  it  differs  from  Matthew  and  Luke  in  that  Man- 
reports  the  open  tomb  to  Simon  only  and  one  other,6 
while  in  Matthew  the  women,  of  whom  she  is  one,  report 


1  Jn.   20:1-18.  *Jn. 

a  Jn.   20:1,  2,   11.  BJn. 

•Jn.   20:2.  *Jn. 


LEGEND  OF  A  MATERIAL  RESURRECTION  299 

it  to  the  "disciples,"  and  in  Luke  they  report  it  to  the 
Eleven  and  all  the  rest. 

Again,  this  Johannine  tradition  of  Mary  at  the  sepulchre 
conflicts  with  the  oldest  Gospel,  for  according  to  that  the 
women  all  fled  from  the  tomb  in  trembling  and  astonish- 
ment,1 but  here  Mary  Magdalene  has  an  interview  with 
Jesus  at  the  sepulchre.2  It  agrees  with  Matthew  in  this 
respect  that  both  know  of  an  appearance  of  the  risen  Jesus 
not  far  from  the  tomb,  but  it  differs  from  Matthew  totally 
in  the  character  of  the  meeting  and  of  the  communication 
from  Jesus.  For  in  Matthew  the  women — one  of  whom 
is  Mary  Magdalene — recognize  Jesus  and  hold  his  feet,3 
but  in  John  Mary  Magdalene  does  not  recognize  him  at 
first,4  and  when  she  does  recognize  him  he  forbids  her 
touching  him.5  In  Matthew  he  said  to  the  women — and 
one  of  them,  be  it  remembered,  is  Mary  Magdalene — 
"Go  tell  my  brethren  that  they  depart  into  Galilee,  and 
there  shall  they  see  me;"  but  here  he  says  nothing  of 
Galilee,  but  bids  her  tell  his  brethren  that  he  is  about  to 
ascend  to  his  God  and  their  God.8 

The  Johannine  tradition  agrees  with  Luke  that  two 
angels  were  seen  in  the  tomb,  but  differs  from  him  utterly 
as  to  what  the  angels  said,  for  here  they  simply  ask  her 
why  she  weeps,  but  there  they  tell  the  women — of  whom 
she  is  one — that  Jesus  is  risen.7 

Finally,  this  Johannine  story  of  Mary  at  the  sepulchre 
agrees  with  Lk.  24:16,  31,  that  the  risen  Jesus  was  able, 
at  will,  to  conceal  or  reveal  his  identity.8  It  is  noticeable 
that,  although  the  story  of  the  appearance  of  the  risen 
Jesus  to  Mary  Magdalene  implies  that  he  was  just  on  the 
point  of  ascending  to  the  Father,  he  is  present  eight  days 
later  with  the  apostles9  and  still  later  has  an  interview 
with  seven  disciples  at  the  Lake  of  Galilee.10  Whether 
the  author  thought  that  Jesus  did  ascend  to  the  Father 
on  the  day  of  the  resurrection,  and  that  the  subsequent 
appearances  were  manifestations  from  on  high,  we  can- 


»Mk.    16:8.  eJn.  20:18. 

Mn.   20:11-18.  TMt.  28:6;  Lk.  24:6. 

•Mt.  28:9.  *Jn.  20:14,   16. 

«Jn.  20:14.  9In-  20:26. 

•Jn.  20:17.  Jn-  3I:I* 


300  THE   LEGENDARY    JESUS 

not  tell,  neither  is  it  plain  what  he  meant  by  "ascending" 
to  the  Father. 

Thus  taking  the  synoptists  together  and  individually,  in 
their  account  of  the  women  at  the  tomb,  there  are  six 
points  of  agreement  between  them  and  the  Johannine 
tradition,  of  which  the  most  important  are  that  the  stone 
was  found  rolled  back  and  the  tomb  empty,  and  nine 
points  of  difference,  of  which  not  less  than  seven  are 
virtually  contradictions. 

The  second  appearance  of  the  risen  Jesus  in  the  Fourth 
Gospel  was  on  the  evening  of  the  day  of  the  resurrection 
and  was  to  the  disciples,  apparently  to  ten  of  the  apostles,1 
in  a  house  in  Jerusalem.  It  thus  offers  itself  as  a  parallel 
to  Luke's  second  story.2  Place  and  time  are  the  same, 
and  though  Luke's  circle  is  larger  than  John's,  it  includes 
that.  But  the  differences  between  the  two  stories  are 
striking.  According  to  Luke,  when  Jesus  appeared 
among  the  disciples,  they  were  "terrified  and  affrighted  ;"* 
according  to  John,  they  were  "glad."*  Again,  the  mes- 
sage of  Jesus  is  utterly  different  in  the  two  stories.  In 
Luke  it  is  demonstration  from  Scripture  that  the  Christ 
should  suffer  and  rise  again  from  the  dead  the  third 
day,  and  that  repentance  should  be  preached  in  his  name 
to  all  the  nations,  beginning  from  Jerusalem.  To  this  are 
added  the  words  about  the  Spirit:  "Behold,  I  send  forth 
the  promise  of  my  Father  upon  you;  but  tarry  ye  in  the 
city  until  ye  be  clothed  with  power  from  on  high."5  Of 
these  points,  which,  in  Luke,  are  substantiated  out  of  the 
Scriptures,  the  Johannine  tradition  has  not  one.  Instead, 
it  has  the  simple  commission :  "As  the  Father  hath  sent 
me,  even  so  send  I  you."8  It  speaks  of  the  Spirit,  but  its 
words  are  widely  at  variance  with  those  of  Luke.  It 
does  not  promise  the  Spirit  for  some  future  time,  but 
represents  that  it  was  imparted  then  and  there.1  More- 
over, while  in  Luke  the  Spirit  is  to  clothe  the  disciples 
with  power  (  8vva/us  ) ,  here  it  is  to  give  them  authority 
to  forgive  or  to  retain  sins8 — two  quite  unlike  conceptions. 


1  Jn.   20:19,  24.  8Lk.  24:46-49. 

*Lk.  24:33,  36-39- 
8Lk.  24:37. 
*  Jn.  20:20. 


-  juk.  24:40-. 
•Jn.   20:21. 
TJn.  20:22. 
•Jn.  20:23. 


LEGEND  OF  A  MATERIAL  RESURRECTION  3OI 

The  third  appearance  of  the  risen  Jesus  according  to 
John  was  eight  days  after  the  second,1  and  apparently  to 
the  Eleven  apostles,  gathered  where  they  were  before.2 
This  also,  like  the  second  appearance,  agrees  with  Luke's 
view  that  the  risen  Jesus,  though  in  a  material  body,  was 
not  subject  to  the  laws  of  matter,  for  he  appeared  in  the 
midst  of  the  disciples  when  the  doors  were  shut.3  It  is 
also  closely  related  to  the  story  in  Luke  in  this  particular 
that  it  puts  in  the  foreground  a  demonstration  of  the 
identity  of  Jesus  by  himself.4  The  remaining  words  of 
Jesus  are  peculiar  to  this  passage:  ''Because  thou  hast 
seen  me  thou  hast  believed :  blessed  are  they  that  have  not 
seen,  and  yet  have  believed."5  This  is  highly  significant. 
It  implies  that  from  the  very  first  days  of  Christianity 
there  had  been  those  who  believed  in  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus  though  they  had  not  seen  him.  Whether  the  writer 
supposed  that  such  persons  had  heard  of  the  empty  tomb, 
or  that  they  believed  on  other  grounds,  we  cannot  say. 
But  by  putting  on  the  lips  of  Jesus  himself  the  words, 
"Blessed  are  they  that  have  not  seen,  and  yet  have  be- 
lieved," he  obviously  wished  to  counteract  a  tendency  to 
lay  too  great  stress,  as  he  thought,  on  the  value  of  these 
appearances  of  the  risen  Jesus. 

It  is  plain  that  this  third  appearance  of  Jesus  in  John, 
which  was  eight  days  after  the  resurrection,  excludes  the 
view  of  Luke's  Gospel  that  the  final  appearance  of  Jesus 
was  on  the  very  day  of  the  resurrection,  and  that  it  also 
excludes  the  view  of  Matthew,  which  is  favored  by  the 
oldest  Gospel,  according  to  which  the  disciples  were  bid- 
den by  Jesus  himself  to  go  into  Galilee.  Here  they  are 
quietly  staying  in  Jerusalem  and  having  interviews  with 
the  risen  Jesus,  which  according  to  Mark  and  Matthew 
they  were  to  have  in  Galilee. 

The  fourth6  and  last  appearance  of  the  risen  Jesus  in 
the  Fourth  Gospel  is  that  which  is  contained  in  the  Appen- 
dix.    The  time  of  this  is  not  indicated  further  than  that 


1  Tn.  20:24.  *Tn.    20:26. 

a)n.  20:26.  *Jh.   20:27. 

•The  writer  in  vs.   14  calls  this  the 


•  Jn.  20:29. 


in  vs.  14  calls  this  the  "third"  appearance  of  Jesus  to  the 
disciples,  a  statement  which  is  at  variance  with  20:11,  19,  26  unless  he 
meant  by  "disciples"  the  apostles. 


302  THE   LEGENDARY   JESUS 

it  was  later  than  the  others,1  the  place  is  by  the  "sea  of 
Tiberias."  They  who  shared  in  this  meeting  with  the 
risen  Jesus  were  seven  disciples,  four  of  whom  at  least 
were  apostles.2  They  had  spent  the  night  fishing,  and 
were  still  in  the  boat,  but  not  far  from  the  shore.3  Jesus 
stood  on  the  beach,4  but  they  did  not  recognize  him  until 
he,  by  bidding  them  cast  on  the  right  side  of  the  boat,  had 
filled  their  net  with  fish.5  Jesus  had  a  fire  on  the  beach, 
on  which  there  was  a  single  small  fish  (  otyapiov)  and  a  loaf 
— whether  for  himself,  or  in  preparation  for  them,  does 
not  appear.0 

The  words  spoken  by  Jesus  on  this  occasion  were 
chiefly  for  Peter,7  one  incidental  remark  only  concerning 
"the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved."8  The  words  to  Peter 
are  the  only  ones  attributed  to  the  risen  Lord  which  seem 
to  concern  an  event  in  his  earthly  life,  for  they  appear 
to  allude  to  Peter's  denial  of  him  in  the  night  of  his  trial.0 

With  regard  to  the  question  of  the  historicity  of  these 
words  to  Peter  the  following  points  are  to  be  noted: 
first,  the  conversation  with  Peter  turns  largely  on  a  dis- 
tinction between  two  Greek  verbs  (  ^mAcT^  and  dyavav  ), 
which  elsewhere  in  this  Gospel  seem  to  be  used  indis- 
criminately.10 Literary  subtleties  of  this  sort  are  surely 
foreign  to  the  style  of  Jesus.  Second,  Peter  is  given  a 
certain  official  preeminence  among  believers,  for  he  is 
commanded  to  "feed"  the  "lambs"  of  Jesus,  to  "tend" 
and  to  "feed"  his  "sheep;"11  but  of  such  preeminence  our 
oldest  sources  have  not  a  trace,12  while  the  division  of 
believers  into  "lambs"  and  "sheep,"  which  appears  here 
as  though  well  known,  is  without  parallel  and  is  vague  in 
itself.  Third,  according  to  the  writer  of  this  passage, 
Jesus  indicated  what  the  "manner"  of  Peter's  death  was 
to  be.13     But  this  feature  is  quite  unlike  the  attitude  of 

1  Tn.   21  :i.  6Jn.  21:6,  7,   12. 

Mn.   21:2.  *Jn.  21:9. 

8Jn.  21:8.  TTn.  21:15-19. 

4  ,Tn.   21:8.  •  Jn.   21:20-23. 

9  This  allusion  lies  in   the   fact  that  the  question  of  Jesus   was  repeated 
thrice  and  thrice  had  Peter  denied  him. 
10  See,  e.g.,  Jn.  11:3,  5;   14:15;   16:27. 

u  Jn.  21:15-17.  "On  Mt   16:17-19  sec  pp.   28-30. 

18  Jn.  21:18-19. — This  "manner"  is  apparently  crucifixion,  since  it  is  with 
outstretched  hands. 


LEGEND  OF  A  MATERIAL  RESURRECTION  303 

Jesus  toward  the  future  of  his  disciples,  according  to  the 
oldest  sources.  These  do  not  contain  a  single  specific 
personal  prediction.  Is  it  likely  that  Jesus'  principle  in 
this  matter  was  changed  by  the  circumstance  of  death  ? 

So  much  for  the  words  to  Peter  on  this  occasion.  There 
was  an  incidental  remark  also  to  another  disciple,  and  this 
must  now  be  considered. 

Peter  was  following  Jesus  along  the  beach,  and  behind 
him  came  the  "disciple  whom  Jesus  loved."1  Having 
heard  about  his  own  future  Peter  asked  what  this  other 
man  should  do.2  Jesus  replied:  "If  I  will  that  he  tarry 
till  I  come,  what  is  that  to  thee  ?"3  Now  this  answer  does 
not  seem  to  be  in  the  manner  of  Jesus.  He  was  always 
frank  and  plain-spoken.  He  knew  what  he  willed  to  do 
and  say  to  his  disciples.  If  the  words  of  the  text  are 
taken  to  mean  that  Jesus  had  not  yet  made  up  his  mind 
whether  that  particular  disciple  should  remain  on  earth 
until  he  came,  then  the  objection  to  them  is  clearly  that 
Jesus  was  not  one  who  spoke  out  of  an  unsettled  state  of 
mind ;  but  if  they  mean  simply,  as  the  writer  took  them, 
that  Jesus  purposely  gave  a  vague  answer  to  the  effect 
that  he  might  possibly  wish  to  have  the  disciple  in  question 
remain  on  earth  until  he  should  come,  then  the  objection 
to  it  is  just  its  vagueness,  where  vagueness  seems  to  have 
no  practical  end.  Such  a  word  was  sure  to  be  misunder- 
stood, and  what  was  there  to  justify  the  ambiguity? 

But  we  will  not  dwell  on  this  point,  nor  insist  that  the 
saying  cannot  possibly  be  historical.  We  say  only  that 
it  does  not  seem  to  be  in  the  manner  of  Jesus.  If  John 
lived  to  a  great  age,  as  tradition  affirms,  that  fact  may 
readily  account  for  the  rise  of  a  belief  that  Jesus  had 
foretold  this  very  thing. 

A  few  words  on  the  Johannine  tradition  as  a  whole. 
Three  of  its  appearances  are  at  Jerusalem  and  one  at  the 
I /ike  of  Galilee.  Thus  it  combines  the  traditions  of 
Matthew  and  Luke,  for  the  former  knows  only  of  a 
Galilean  appearance  and  the  latter  only  of  appearances  in 
or  near  Jerusalem.     The  last  of  the  Johannine  appear- 

1  Jn.   21:20.  2Jn.   21:21.  *  Jn.  21:22, 


304  THE   LEGENDARY   JESUS 

ances  is  apparently  regarded  as  the  last  which  was  known 
to  have  occurred.  Thus  it  contradicts  the  tradition  of 
Matthew  which  seems  to  put  the  final  appearance  of  the 
risen  Jesus  on  a  mountain  in  Galilee,  and  contradicts  also 
that  of  Luke,  according  to  which  the  final  appearance 
was  near  Bethany  in  Judea. 

It  remains  now  to  sum  up  the  results  of  this  analysis 
of  the  four  appearances  of  the  risen  Jesus  which  are 
found  in  John.  We  may  say  that  the  analysis  strongly 
confirms  the  conclusion  drawn  from  the  independent  study 
of  the  synoptists  and  Paul  that  there  was  no  fixed  tradi- 
tion in  the  early  Church  regarding  either  the  women  at 
the  sepulchre,  or  the  appearances  of  the  risen  Jesus.  The 
element  which  it  shares  with  all  the  early  narratives  is 
that  the  tomb  was  found  empty,  and  the  further  element 
which  it  shares  with  Matthew  and  Luke  is  that  Jesus 
appeared  to  one  or  more  of  his  disciples.  Aside  from 
this  common  element  its  numerous  details  only  add  to  the 
confusion  that  reigns  in  the  synoptists. 

What  now,  in  view  of  all  the  data,  is  to  be  said  of  the 
common  element  in  the  narratives?  What  is  to  be  said 
of  the  evidence  that  the  tomb  was  found  empty?  What 
also  of  the  nature  of  the  appearances  of  the  risen  Jesus, 
and  of  the  connection  of  these  two  events  ? 

It  has  been  shown  that  no  saying  of  Jesus  regarding 
his  future  warrants  an  expectation  that  his  body  was  to 
come  forth  from  the  tomb.  Paul,  as  we  have  seen,  whose 
account  of  the  resurrection  antedates  the  Gospel,  has 
nothing  to  say  of  the  empty  tomb,  and  it  does  not  appear 
that  he  regarded  it  as  necessary  to  his  view  of  the 
resurrection. 

The  oldest  Gospel,  however,  says  that  the  tomb  was 
found  open,  and  with  this  statement  the  others  agree. 
That  the  tomb  was  empty  also,  that  the  body  of  Jesus  was 
not  there,  this,  in  the  oldest  Gospel,  is  not  said  as  some- 
thing which  the  women  observed,  but  it  is  told  them  by 
the  angel.  At  this  point  the  divergence  begins  and  goes 
on  increasing  at  every  forward  step.  We  may  grant  that, 
if  the  body  had  left  the  tomb,  having  been  reanimated,  it 
was  natural  enough  that  the  tomb  remained  open;  but 


*mv#i 


LEGEND  OF  A  MATERIAL  RESURRECTION  305 

we  cannot  affirm  that  the  simple  fact  of  an  open  tomb 
implied  that  it  was  also  empty,  for  any  ordinary  tomb, 
being-  intended  for  more  than  one  body,  was  liable  to  be 
opened  at  any  time. 

That  the  body  of  Jesus  was  not  in  the  tomb  rests,  in 
the  oldest  Gospel,  on  angelic  evidence,  in  the  later  Luke 
it  rests  also  on  the  observation  of  Peter,  and  in  the  last 
of  the  narratives  it  rests  not  at  all  on  angelic  evidence  but 
on  the  witness  of  Peter  and  another  disciple.  This 
change  in  the  evidence,  or  in  the  statement  of  the  evidence, 
as  time  passed,  is  significant.  It  seems  to  imply  an  in- 
creasing sense  of  the  importance  of  showing  that  the 
tomb  was  empty.  It  is  of  interest  to  note  that  the 
parallel  fact  that,  while  in  Matthew  the  materiality  of  the 
risen  Jesus  is  barely  implied,  in  Luke's  last  appearance 
and  in  the  Johannine  tradition  it  is  strongly  emphasized. 
These  two  facts  raise  the  question  whether  the  interest 
of  Christians  in  the  material  resurrection  of  Jesus,  when 
our  Gospels  were  written,  was  not  due  wholly  to  a  belief 
that,  without  a  material  resurrection,  the  reality  of  his 
appearances  would  fall  to  the  ground.  That  seems  to  me 
the  probable  explanation  of  the  increasing  emphasis  on 
this  point. 

But  to  return  to  the  evidence  for  an  open  tomb,  not  to 
say  an  empty  one.  The  oldest  Gospel  witnesses  to  it,  the 
others  likewise.  But  we  are  bound  to  consider  the  strange 
divergences  in  the  stories,  for  these  may  reflect  unfavor- 
ably upon  any  common  element  which  they  have.  It  is 
difficult  to  believe  that  there  was  from  the  beginning  a 
sure  tradition  that  the  tomb  was  found  open  on  the  third 
day  after  the  crucifixion,  and  yet  no  sure  tradition  as  to 
who  found  it  open,  or  why  any  one  had  come  thither. 
BuTsuch  is  the  fact,  as  we  have  seen.  John  says  that  one 
woman  came,  Matthew  two.,  Mark  three,  and  Luke  not 
less  than  fjye^  possibly  more.  And  as  to  the  why.  In 
Mark  and  Luke,  the  women  come  to  anoint  the  body,  in 
Matthew  to  see  the  tomb,  while  in  John  the  same  Mary 
who  in  Matthew  comes  to  sejz.  the  tomb  and  in  Mark  to 
anoint  the  body,  speaks  of  wishing  to  find  the  body  that 
she  may  take  it  away.  Now  it  does  not  seem  credible 
20  ~~^ 


306  THE   LEGENDARY   JESUS 

that  there  can  have  been  an  original  tradition  regarding 
an  open  tomb  which  yet  preserved  nothing  definite  as  to 
who  came,  or  why  they  came. 

As  to  the  other  point  which  the  oldest  sources,  except 
Mark,  share  in  common,  viz.  that  Jesus  appeared  to  some 
of  his  disciples  soon  after  his  death  and  burial,  the 
sources,  by  their  numerous  and  radical  divergence  from 
each  other,  drive  us  to  the  conclusion  that  the  stories,  as 
they  stand,  cannot  be  accepted  as  historical.  In  the  free- 
dom with  which  they  deal  with  the  same  incident,  for 
example,  the  appearance  to  Mary  Magdalene  or  that  to 
the  apostles  on  the  evening  of  the  day  of  the  resurrection, 
they  plainly  suggest  that  the  writers  were  unhampered  by 
the  past. 

Yet  while,  as  historical  students,  we  cannot  regard 
these  stories  as  historical,  we  must  still,  in  the  name  of 
history,  hold  that  some  of  the  disciples  had  znsions  of 
Jesus.  Paul,  who  may  very  probably  have  drawn  his 
information  from  Peter,  believed  this,  and  the  stories  of 
the  Gospels — not  to  mention  the  stupendous  fact  that  the 
disciples  were  changed  by  something  from  a  scattered  and 
timid  band  into  a  bold  and  triumphant  power — can  hardly 
be  accounted  for  had  there  been  no  vision  of  Jesus.  What 
this  vision  was  we  cannot  learn  from  the  contradictory 
reports  in  the  Gospels.  We  must  either  say  that  we  do 
not  know,  or,  what  is  more  satisfactory,  we  must  say  with 
Paul  that  the  appearance  of  the  risen  Jesus  to  the  disciples 
was  like  the  appearance  to  him  on  the  way  to  Damascus. 
It  was  a  "heavenly  vision,"  a  revelation  of  the  Son  of 
God  in  them. 

The  motives  which  led  to  the  development  of  the 
materialistic  stories  of  Matthew,  Luke  and  John  are  likely 
to  have  been,  first,  a  desire  to  make  the  appearance  of 
Jesus  more  impressive  and  to  give  it  greater  demonstra- 
tive power,  and  second,  a  desire  to  gain  the  authority  of 
Jesus  for  various  beliefs  of  later  times. 

I  cannot  close  this  chapter,  which  will  be  disappointing 
to  some  of  my  readers,  without  a  word  on  its  relation  to 
the  ministry  of  Jesus  and  to  the  present  ministry  of  his 
Gospel  in  the  world. 


LEGEND  OF  A  MATERIAL  RESURRECTION  2>°7 

And  first,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  hypothesis  of  a 
spiritual  vision  of  the  risen  Jesus  by  his  disciples  is  in 
fullest  accord  with  the  record  of  his  ministry.  That  he 
who  had  most  profoundly  impressed  a  number  of  disciples 
should  have  appeared  to  them  in  the  days  following  his 
death  is  certainly  as  reasonable  as  that  Paul  should 
have  had  a  vision  of  him. 

Further,  there  is  no  part  of  the  message  of  Jesus  which 
is  in  the  least  affected  by  the  conclusion  that  the  stories  of 
an  empty  tomb  and  the  appearance  of  a  materially  risen 
Master  are  not  historical.  That  message  remains  in  all 
its  freshness  and  power.  It  was  sealed  by  the  life  and 
love  of  Jesus.  He  did  not  teach  that  it  was  to  be  sealed 
by  a  material  resurrection  of  his  body. 

And  finally,  it  cannot  be  doubted  that,  for  the  present 
age  and  for  all  subsequent  ages  which,  like  this,  shall  be 
scientific  in  their  temper  and  activities,  the  Gospel  is  and 
will  be  more  effective  when  relieved  of  the  burden  of 
belief  in  the  material  resurrection  of  Jesus.  It  must  be 
more  effective,  ultimately,  we  should  say,  the  more  truth- 
fully it  is  set  forth,  and  this  belief  is  shown  to  be  devoid 
of  historical  support  by  an  impartial  critical  examination 
of  the  Gospel  records. 

The  Church  of  the  twentieth  century  is  at  one  with  the 
Apostolic  Church  in  the  belief  that  Jesus,  having  suffered 
death  on  the  cross,  continued  to  live;  but  the  grounds  of 
that  belief  which  found  a  place  in  the  Gospel  narrative 
cannot  be  regarded  as  valid.  The  abiding  foundation  of 
that  belief  is  not  material — an  empty  tomb,  a  re-animated 
physical  body — but  it  is  spiritual. 


INDEXES 


I.     Passages  from  the  Logia.1 


Chapt 


Mt. 


Lk. 


Page 


3:7-11 

3:7-9 

126,  217 

3:1a 

3:i7 

123,  163 

4:3-11 

4:3-n 

133-138,  196 

5:1 

6:20 

171 

5:3 

6:20 

22 

5:3»  4.  6 

6:20-21 

22,   156,  158,  168 

5:18 

6:17 

156 

5:20 

6:2,  5,  16 

20 

5:3a.  39.  44 

139 

5:39.  40 

6:27-30 

156 

5:44-48 

6:32-36 

156,  167-168 

5:48 

6:36 

1 49 

6:9 

till 

40 

6:9-13 

11:24 

157,  158,  168 

6:9,  26,  32 

11:2;  12:24,  30 

167,  168 

6:20-21 

12:33 

166 

6:25-33 

12:22-31 

157,  168-169 

6:26-30 

116 

6:27 

12:25 

42 

6:33 

12:31 

158 

7:1-2 

6:37-38 

156 

7:7-" 

11:9-13 

157,  169,  167 

7:9-10 

116 

7:11 

11:13 

42,  172 

7:12 

6:31 

157 

7:21 

6:46 

140 

7:21,  24-27 

6:46,  47-49 

157 

7:21-22 

20 

7:23 

13:25-27 

iSi 

7:24 

6:47 

31,  33 

7:2428 

116 

7:24-27 

6:47-49 

142 

7:28 

21 

1  Perhaps  some  of  these  passages  should  be  followed  by  marks  of  inter- 
rogation. 

309 


3IQ  INDEX 

Mt.  Lk. 

13 128-30 


t.   8:5 

7:i 

8:5-13 

7:1-10; 

8:10 

8:11-12 

13:28-29 

8:19-22 

9:57-60 

8:21 

9:59 

8:22 

9:60 

9:32-34 

11:14 

9:37-38 

10:2 

10:2 

10:7 

10:9 

10:8 

10:9: 

10:15 

10:12 

10:20 

10:24-25 

6:40 

10:28 

12:4 

10:29-30 

12:6-8 

10:32-33 

10:32-33 

12:8-9 

10:33 

12:9 

10:36 

10:37 

14:26 

10:39 

9:24 

10:40 

10:16 

10:22 

11:2-4 

Ittl 

11:2 

3:20 

11:2 

7:18 

11:2-3 

11:2-6 

7:18-23 

":5 

7:22 

11:7-11 

7:24-28 

":7-9 

7:24-28, 

Iltll 

It  til 

7:28 

11:12 

16:16 

11:13 

16:16 

11:16,  19 

16:31-35 

11:18 

16:33 

11:19 

1 1  -.20-24 

10:13-16 

11:21 

10:13 

11:21-24 

10:13-15 

11:25 

10:21 

11:25-27 

10:21-22 

11:27 


183 

31, 

42, 

172 

33 

156, 

158, 

166 

IO 

42 

170 

171 

10, 

171 

41 

158, 

159 

171. 

172- 

173 

31 

31 

154- 

'55. 

171 

42 

>57. 

169 

30, 

33. 

166 

3»» 

»42, 

151.  155 

170 

"5 

43 

31 

155-1 

156. 

183 

165 

116 

SI 

123 

127 

131 

10, 

123-124,  143 

173 

124. 

128, 

129 

10 

33 

159 

116, 

124 

162 

183 

124 

116 

202 

170, 

175 

10,  : 

t72, 

183 

4i. 

'83 

144*145* 

147,  155, 

169,  170,  200 

32-33 

167, 


INDEX  311 

Mt.  Lk.  Pack 


mi  (?) 

41 

12:22-23, 

27-28, 

30:1:14,    19-20,   23 

10,  171-172, 

12:22*24, 

43-45 

11:14,   24-26 

169,  173 

12:8 

28 

12:5,  9,  46 

30 

12:41 

41 

12:38-42 

11:29-32 

143,     169,     3 

12:39-40 

1 1 :29-39 

IO,    23 

12:41-42 

10:31-32 

33,    170 

13:16-17 

33 

13:16-17 

10:23-24 

43,    M3-I44 

13:23,   26,  28 

40-41 

13:33 

34   • 

13:33 

13:20-21 

158 

13:53 

21 

14.25 

41 

17:20 

17:6 

116,    157,    n 

18:12-14 

15:4-7 

:69 

18:15-17 

-7:3-4 

23 

18:21-22 

17:4 

156 

19:1 

21 

19:11-27 

41 

19:28 

22:28-30 

Mi 

22:1-14 

14:15-24 

24,    41 

23:13.  33-24 

11:42,  52 

220 

33:37 

13:34 

183 

*3  37-39 

13:34-35 

55 

24:37.    37-39, 

♦0-  17:24,  26-27,  34-35; 

12: 

41.   43-45 

42-46 

166 

24:43 

12:42 

171 

25:14-30 

19:11-37 

44-45 

26:1  (?) 

21 

275 


169 


Passages  from  the  Earliest  Gospel  with  Synoptic  parallels 
where  such  are  found. 


Chapt 


Mk. 

Mt. 

Lk. 

Page 

i:5 

3:5 

3:3 

125 

1:6 

3:4 

124 

1:7-8 

3:710 

3:7-9-    -7 

123 

1:8 

3:11 

3:16 

126 

1:9 

3:13 

3:21 

128 

1:10 

3:16 

3:21 

130 

1:11 

3:17 

3:22 

13,  27 

1:12-13 

134 

1:13 

249 

312 


INDEX 


Mt 


Mt. 


Lk. 


Page 


1:13 

4:1 

4:1 

11 

1:14 

4:i2 

3:30 

184 

1:14-15 

4:»7 

4:i4->5 

184 

1:14,  16 

4:i3 

185 

IM4,   l6,  21    4M2,   l8 

4:U.  3i 

13 

i:i7 

4M9 

4:10 

185 

i:i9 

4:21 

185 

1:21.28,  35 

38 

16 

1:21-28 

4:31-37 

185 

1:23,  29,  32, 

35 

186 

1:24 

3:34 

13 

1:29 

8:14 

4:38 

«85 

1:39-31 

8:1415 

4:38-39 

15.  185 

1:29.  32 

2:1 

187 

1:30,  32 

193 

':j' 

8:15 

26 

i:3*-34 

8:16-17 

4:40-41 

175.  185 

>:3* 

8:16 

17 

i:34 

8:16 

18 

»:35 

4:4-* 

13 

1:38 

4:43 

13.   186 

i:39 

4:33 

4:44 

II,  12,  186 

1:40 

8:3 

5:1a 

II,   186 

i:44 

8:4 

5:14 

13 

i:4S 

5:i5  16 

186 

2:1 

9:1 

5:i.  3 

12 

2:1-12 

9:1-8 

5:i7-a6 

15 

2-4 

9'* 

17 

2:4 

5:19 

187 

2:5  7 

9-*i 

5:30-31 

12 

2:10 

9:6 

5:34 

U 

3:i5 

9:10 

5=*9 

189 

2:16 

9:11 

5:30 

13,   188 

2:17 

9^3 

5:3a 

174-175 

3:18 

9:i4 

5:33 

134,  136,  188 

2:18*19 

9:i5 

5:34 

161 

3:19 

9:15 

5:34 

175 

2:20 

9:i5 

5:35 

17,  376 

2:21 

9:16 

17 

2:21-22 

9:16-17 

5:36-38 

161 

»'2i 

13:1 

6:1 

187 

2:23;     3:3 

T2:t,  10 

6:1,  6 

175.  187 

3:24 

12:2 

6:3 

188 

3:28 

12:8 

6:5 

189 

3:5;   Io:i4 

19 

3:6 

12:14 

6:11 

188 

INDEX  313 


Mk.  Mt.  Lr.  Page 

6:17  187 

6:12,  13       12 
6:13  179.  189 

6:16  190 

16 

19,  268 
8:19-21        187 
11:13  188 

8:19,  20       187 


3:8 

4:2s 

3:13.  14 

5:1 

3:14 

10:2 

3:18 

3:20-21 

3:21.    3* 

3:ai»    31*35 

12:46-50 

3:2a 

12:24 

3:31 

12:46 

3=33-34 

12:48-50 

3:34 

12:49 

3:35 

12:50 

8:21         117-118 
8:21  159-160 

8:21  35 


4:2         U:3  8:4  14 

4:10        13:10  8:9  14,  187 

IS 
15 
16 
»4 
'4 


4:21 

S:>4. 

16 

8:16 

4:24 

7:2 

8:18 

4:26-29 

4:33 

13:34 

4:35 

8:18 

8:22 

4:35-41; 

5:21-43 

8:18, 

23-27. 

28-34;  8:22-25 

9: 

18-26 

5:1 

8:28 

8:26 

5:1-20 

8:26-39 

5:5 

5:21,    35 

8:40,   4< 

5:21 

9:18 

5:23;    7:25 

9:18 

5:28 

9:21 

8:44 

5:30 

9:24 

8:52 

6:1 

13:54 

4:16 

6:1,  6.   7 

9:35 

6:1-6 

13:53- 

58 

4:16-30 

6:3 

13:55 

6:4 

6:5 

13:58 

6:6 

9:35 

13:22 

6:7 

10:1 

9:1 

6:8-9,    11 

10:9-10,  14 

9:3.  5 

6:12-13 

9:6 

6:1429 

14:1-1 

2 

6:16 

6:30 

9:10 

6:30-44 

14:13- 

21 

9:10-17 

6:31 

14:13 

16,  177-179.  190 


12 

38-39 

16 

12 

26 

17 

I90 

176 


12 

191 

119-121 
18 
146 
18 
II 
II 
193 
19a 
125 
125 
11 

177-179 
192 
6:31-34       14:13-21;  9:10-17  14 


314  INDEX 

Mk.  Mt.  Lk.  Pag* 


6:33 

19a 

6:34 

14:14 

26 

6:45 

259 

6:45 

9:10 

192 

6:45-52 

14:22-27,   32-33 

258,  262 

6:48 

259 

6:51.    5-« 

259 

6:53 

14:34 

ii,    12,   192,  258 

6:55-56 

'4:35-36 

»93 

7-t'23 

15:1-20 

37.    193 

7:24 

15:21 

12,    194 

7Si 

15:29 

12,    194 

7:2629 

27 

7:25-30 

15:22-28 

194 

7:3a-35 

16,    19 

7=3^35 

» 5:*9-3o 

'95 

7:36 

13.    '9 

8:1-9 

15:32-39 

I9S 

8:1-10 

37 

8:1-10 

15:32-39 

'4 

8:10 

>5:39 

'95 

8:11 

16:1 

196 

8:15 

16:6 

12:1 

196 

8:18,   23-27, 

28-34 

16 

8:22-26 

16.    19,    '97.    '3 

8:22,   27 

16:13 

12 

8:27 

16:13 

9:.8 

'91,    '97*    *79.    '8 

8:27-28 

16:13-14 

9:18-19 

'25.     «47 

8:27-30 

16:13-20 

9:18-21 

12 

8:29 

16:16 

9:20 

'5 

8:30 

16:20 

9:21 

>3 

8:31 

261 

8:31 

16:21 

9:22 

13.   31.    '98,   276 

8:34 

9:23 

159,    198,   35 

8:38 

16:27 

9:26 

159.    166,    149.  3' 
33.  32 

9:1 

222,    277 

9:2-8 

17:1-9 

9:28-36 

259,    260 

9:15-16,  21-24, 

4950 

16 

9:14 

17:14 

9:37 

198 

9:18 

17:16 

9:40 

198 

9:19 

17:17 

9:41 

198 

9:21-24 

198 

9:28-29 

17:19-20         • 

198 

INDEX 


315 


Mk. 


Mt. 


Lr. 


Pagi 


9:30 

17:22 

12 

9:31 

17:22 

9:44 

13,  200,  201 

9:33 

18:34 

262 

9:3a 

«9:45 

277,   200 

9:33 

17:24 

12,  200 

9:34 

18:1 

9:46 

160,  201 

9:35-36 

18:25 

9:47-48 

201 

9:35 

20:27 

22:26 

29 

9:37 

18:5 

9:48 

31 

9:39 

i75 

9:38-41 

9:49-50 

201 

9:42 

18:6 

17:2 

175.  202 

9:43 

30,  202 

9:50 

5:i3 

M:34-35 

15 

10:1 

19:1 

11,  12 

10:1 

19:2 

9:51-56 

204,  205 

10:2-12 

19:3-4.  7-8 

16:18 

205 

10:13-16 

19:13-15 

18:15-17 

205 

10:14 

19:14 

18:16 

160 

10:15 

37 

10:17-27 

19:16-26 

18:18-23 

152,  206 

10:21 

19:21 

18:22 

159 

10:21;  5:32 

19:9 

16:18a 

15 

10:28 

19:27 

18:28 

15,  206 

10:30 

19:29 

18:30 

161-162 

10:32-34 

20:17-19 

18:31-34 

207 

10:33 

20:18 

18:32 

13 

10:35-40 

37,  207 

10:38 

228 

10:40 

20:23 

29,  141 

10:41 

20:24 

22:24 

208 

10:42-45 

20:26-28 

22:26 

142,  208 

10:45 

20:28 

34.  160 

10:46 

20:29 

18:35 

12,  204,  209 

10:46-50 

20:29-34 

18:35-43 

209 

10:47 

20:30 

18:38 

119 

11:1 

21:1 

19:29 

12 

11:2.  3,  4 

21:3 

26,  213 

11:11 

16,  214,  212 

11:11 

3:i7 

3:2a 

130 

11:12,  20 

21:19-20 

18,  212 

11:19,  20,  27 

212 

11:21 

13 

11:21 

21:20 

15 

11:30 

21:25 

20:4 

125,  129 

11:12-14 

21  :i8-i9 

215 

11:21 

21 :20 

215 

316 


INDEX 


Mk.  Mt.  Lk.  Pack 

11:17  21:13  19:46  216 

11:18  19:47-48  216 

11:19  12,  216 

11:27-28,    32       21:23  *       20:1-2  217 

12:1-12  21:33-46  20:9-19  217,   218 

12:4  17 

12:10  278 

12:13  21:15  218 

12:14  22:17  20:22  218 

12:18-27  ^i-^i-53  20:27-38  218 

12:28-37  22:34-40  10:25-28;  20:40       219 

12:32-34,    41-44  16 

12:35  22:41  20:41  118 

12:38-40  23:1-7  20:45-47  220 

12:41-44  21:1-4  220 


13:1,    2-4  24:1,   2,   4  21:5,   6,   7                 221 

13:S  24:4  21:8                            221 

13:14  221 

13:5.    9.    13  24:4,9  21:8,    16-17                221 

13:11  21:15  221 

13:24  24:29  221 

13:24-26  24:29,  30                    21:25,    27                   148,    221,     166 

13:26  32 

13:31  147 

13:32  24:36  150,   221 

*3-3*-37  24:42;  25:1314       21:36;    12:40            221 

14:2  26:5  22:2                             224 

14:3-9  26:6-13  7:36-50                      222 

14:8  26:12  278 

14:10-11  26:14-16  22:3-6                          222 

14:11  224 

14:12  22:7  224 

14:14  26:18  22:11                            225 

14:17  26:20  22:14                            >79 

14:18  26:21  22:21                            225 

14:21  26:24  22:22                           148,    276,    175 

14:21,62  278 

14:22  226 

14:22  26:26,  29                   22:18,   19                   276 

14:23-25  226 

14:27  26:31  2127,    278 

14:29  26:33  22:33                            «7 

14:30  26:34  22:34                           **7 

14:33  26:27  327 

14:36  26:39  22:42           227 

14:37,  40  26:40,  43        22:45           «7 


INDEX 


317 


Mk. 


Mt. 


Lk. 


Pack 


14:41-4* 

227 

14:43 

26:47 

22:47 

228 

14:44 

26:48 

17 

14:47,  Si 

228,  229 

14:44-45 

26:48-49 

22:47-48 

229 

14:48 

26:55 

22:52 

229 

14:51-53 

15 

14:53 

26:57 

229 

14:54 

26:58 

22:5455 

229 

14:56-58 

229 

14:58 

230 

14:61 

26:63 

22:67,    70 

149 

14:61-62 

26:63-64 

22:67-70 

230-231 

14:62 

32 

14:63-64 

26:65-66 

22:71 

231 

14:65 

26:67-68 

22:63-65 

231 

14:66-72 

26:69-75 

22:56-62 

231-232 

14:68 

26:71 

17 

15:1 

27:1 

232 

15:3 

27:11 

23:3 

149.   232 

15:6-8 

27:17 

33:16-18 

233 

15:9 

233 

15:11 

27:20 

233 

15:13 

27:22 

23:11 

233 

15:14 

27:23 

23:23 

^33 

15:16-20 

22:27  31 

333 

15:20 

27:32 

334 

15:31 

27:32 

23:26 

-34 

15:2a 

27:2% 

23:32 

234 

15:24 

234 

15:25 

233 

15:29-3* 

*7 :39-44 

33:35-37 

234 

15:34 

-\H 

15:34-35 

27:46-47 

235 

15:34-36 

234 

15:37 

334 

15:37 

27:50 

23:46 

235 

15:37 

27:57 

23:54 

235 

15:40 

234 

15:40-41 

27:55-56 

23:49 

234 

27:48-49 

235 

15:43 

212 

15:43 

27:59 

23:50 

235 

15:44 

16 

15:46.    47 

235 

16:1-8 

28:1-10 

24:1-7 

280-286 

16:7 

28:7 

32 

16:7 

28:7 

24:6 

15 

318  INDEX 

3.     Passages  from  the  Material  peculiar1  to  Matthew.' 


Chapt. 

Pago 

Chapt.  1:1-17 

239 

1:18-25 

239-240 

1:20 

249 

2:1-2.1 

240 

2:7,    16 

240 

2:12,  13, 

16 

241 

2:13.  19 

249 

2:23 

-'  1 2 

3:1,  16,  23 

248 

3:14-15 

.•r> 

3  =  '7 

27 

5:i3->4 

1S1 

6:6 

151 

9:9 

189 

10:5 

109 

10:8 

34 

11:28 

116 

11:28-30 

181 

13:37-43 

27 

'3:41 

30 

13:44-46 

''-3 

Chapt. 

Pago 

14:28-31 

25 

14:28-33 

262 

16:18-19 

2829 

16:28 

30 

17:24-27 

203,  263,  25 

18:8 

30 

18:17 

29 

18:20 

3i 

'8:35 

151 

19:28 

30 

21  :io-i  i 

214 

21:10-11,  1 

425 

23:8 

162-163,  150 

25:31-46 

30-31 

27:3-10 

232 

27:19.  24 

233 

27:51-53 

*5 

28:2 

25 

28:9-10 

286-287 

28:16-20 

287-290 

28:17 

35 

28:1820a 

32-34 

28:20b 

3i 

1  Chapters   1-2  arc  more  or  less  parallel  to   Luke   1-2. 

2  This  index  does  n<>t  take  account  of  single  words  peculiar  to  the  author 
of  the   First   Gospel   but   only  of  verses. 

4.     Passages  from  the  Material  peculiar1  to  Luke.3 


Chapt. 


I  'age 


1:1-4 

3 

1:3 

46 

1 : 1  r 

28 

1:26 

249 

1:36 

128 

1 :26-56 

•244 

1:30-33 

245 

i:35-37 

245 

i:39,  56 

245 

1:46-55 

-MS 

Chapt. 


Page 


2:1-20 

244 

2:9 

28,  249 

2:21-39 

244 

2:4,  39 

248 

2:13 

249 

2:21,  26 

246 

2:36-38 

246 

2:39,    22        246,    248 
2:40-52  48-49 

^Chapters   1-2   are   parallel   in   part   to   Mt.    1-2. 

-  This  index,  as  in  the  case  of  the  preceding  one,  does  not  include  single 

words. 


INDEX 


319 


Chapt. 

3:iS 

5:i-9 

7:11-17 

8:1-3 

9:33 

9:51-56 

9:61-62 

10:1 
10:9 

10:29-37 
10:38-42 

it  :i 

1 1  Mi-19 

1 1  :-•  7-28 

12:49-50 
12:50 

13:10-17 

13:33 
13:31-33 

15: 
15:8-32 

15:10 
15:8-10 

16:19-31 

17:11-19 

17:20-21 


Page 

125 

37,  163-164 

47,  264-265 

47.    199 

261 

46-47 

208 

264 

172 

47 

47,   150,    164 

125-126 

46 

47.    164 

208 
207 

*47 
>SO 
207,  208,   209 

167 
181 
28 
47 

49 

264 

165 


Chapt 


Page 


18:1-8 

47,  151 

18:9-14 

46 

19:1-10 

46,  48,  49.  200- 

10 

19:11-28 

211 

19:39-40 

213 

19:41 

47 

19:41-44 

214 

21:37 

212 

22:8,  15 

224 

22:17-18 

225 

22:21 

226 

22:29 

28 

22  :43-44 

249,  264 

22:51 

46,  265 

22:61 

47 

22:66 

230 

23:5-7 

232 

23:27-29 

47 

23:34.  39*43 

46 

234 

24:26 

292 

24:29,41, 

42 

293 

24:31 

291-292 

24:34 

290 

24:40 

283 

24:44 

294 

24:46-47 

294-295 

24:49 

295-296 

24:50-51 

296 

5.     Passages  from  the  Fourth  Gospel. 


Chapt. 

Page 

HI 

62,   66 

1:1-5 

250 

1:3.  4 

62 

1:4 

59.  65, 

1:5.  26 

5i 

lift  15 

65 

lift  31 

55 

mi,  14 

63,  70 

1:11-12 

64 

1:12 

250,  5S 

1:13;  3:3 

68 

70 


Chapt. 


Page 


1:14 

250,  58,  62,  67 

1:15.  30 

65.  55 

1:18 

59.  68,  67 

1:29,  36 

65,  55,  58 

1:32 

5i 

1:33 

128 

1:35-42 

185,  55 

1:41-42 

184 

1 :42,  45-5 

t  66 

i:43 

5i,  52,  55 

1:49 

67 

320 


INDEX 


ChapL 

Page 

Chapt. 

Page 

2:1-4 

267-269 

8:59 

68 

2:1,  12,  12 

184 

2:11 
2:12 

57,  267 
56 

9:1.  s 
9:6 

57 
58 

2:13-22 

61 

9:1-41 

27 1 

2:18 
2:19 

57.  58 
230.  54 

9:5 
9:35-38 

7o 

59 

2:2s 

66 

10:10 

53 

10:15 

53 

3:3.  5 

52.   59 

10:18 

68 

3:" 

67 

3:1-2-13 

67 

10:24-25 

59 

3:16 

53 

10:29 

53 

3:-'-' 

56 

11:1-44 

271-273 

11:3.  34 

58 

4:i-4-%  4.1 

11:14 

66 

45 

184 

11:25 

57 

4:- 

71 

11:41-42 

60 

4:6 

72 

11:43 

57 

4:18 

66 

11:45 

272 

A-2  1,     2  J 

53 

11:52 

59 

4:26 

53.  59 

11:54 

56 

4:44 

5-* 

4:5-42 

56 

12:1 

61-62 

4:46-54 

5».  56,57.265-266 

12:5-6 

223 

12:8 

52-53 

5:i-9 

269-271 

12:1213 

213 

S:>  47.  56 

56.  57.  58 

12:20-23 

61 

5:8 

S2 

12:25 

52 

5:»3 

270 

12:27-30 

60 

5:26,  21 

68,  53 

12:32 

70 

5:23 

69 

12:36 

68 

6:5 
6:6,  64 

Si.  57.  58 

66 

U:i4-»5 
13:16 

54 
52 

6:16-21 

258,  266 

13:17 
13:18 

54 
53 

6:19 

2  59 

13:20 

53 

6:33 
6:35 
6:44 
6:46 

7o 
53 
68 
67 

13:21,  38 

13:26-30 

»3:3» 

52 

226 

68 

6:53.  62 

67 

14:21 

7i 

6:66-71 

61,  223 

14:26 

61 

7:1 

56 

15:10 

69 

7:19 

54 

15:20 

52,  54 

7:29 

53.  67 

15:26 

61 

8:12 

70,  181 

16:2 

54 

8:14,26, 

16:16,  22 

54 

28 

67,  70 

16:27 

71 

INDEX 


321 


Chapt. 


Page 


16:28 

68 

16:30 

66 

17:11 

68 

17:21 

69 

17:24 

58 

18:2 

228 

18:15 

229 

18:20 

56 

18:36 

59 

18:37 

53 

19:14 

62 

19:23 

334 

Chapt. 

Page 

19:25 

283 

19:26-27 

234 

19:28-29, 

30234 

19:38-42 

236 

20:1-18 

298-300 

20:17 

7i 

20:19-23 

300 

20:24,  26 

301 

20:31 

58 

21:1-22 

301-303 

21:17 

66 

21:7 

263 

CORRIGENDA 

Page    10,  note  6,  for  Lk.  20  read  Lk.  10. 

Page    12,  line  13,  for  20  read  14. 

Page  150,  for  Mt.  28:8  read  23:8. 

Page  157,  note  3,  for  Lk.  10  read  Lk.  II. 

Page  163,  note  5,  insert  the  reference  5:1-9  at  the  beginning. 

Page  167,  note,  omit  Lk.  6:22. 


THE    following    pages    contain    advertisements    of 
books  by  the  same  author  and  on  kindred  subjects. 


By  GEORGE  HOLLEY  GILBERT,  D.D. 

Revelation  of  Jesus 

Cloth,  12moy  $1.25  net;  postpaid,  $1.35 

"The  book  is  to  be  heartily  commended  for  general  reading, 
for  its  conclusions  are  the  proved  results  of  modern  scholar- 
ship. ' ' — Boston  Transcript. 

"Will  be  most  helpful  to  Bible  students  and  clergymen."— 
Los  Angeles  Express. 

"An  invaluable  handbook,  leading  to  the  study  of  essential 
factors  in  our  faith."— Northern  Christian  Advocate. 

The  Acts 

(Bible  for  Home  and  School.) 

Decorated  Cloth,  16mo,  $0.75  net;  postpaid,  $0.84 

"A  notable  number  in  this  excellent  series.  It  must  prove  of 
high  value  to  Sunday  School  teachers  and  busy  laymen  and 
pastors." — Geo.  B.  Stewart. 

Interpretation  of  the  Bible  ^L^ 

A  Short  History 
Cloth,  Unto,  $1.25  net;  postpaid,  $1.35 

"Here  is  shown  much  study  and  vigorous  treatment  of  a  great 
but  neglected  field." — Advance. 

"Scholarly,  interesting  and  accurate." — Congregationalist. 

"Every  page  of  this  book  is  of  value,  and  it  should  be  in  the 
possession  of  every  student  of  the  Bible." — Deaconess  Advocate. 


THE    MACMILLAN     COMPANY 

Publishers     64-66  Fifth  Avenue     New  York 


7 


7 


Other  Books  by  Dr.  Gilbert 

A  Primer  of  the  Christian  Religion 

Based  on  the  Teaching  of  Jesus 

Cloth,  16mo,  $1  net;  by  mail  $1.08 

The  book  is  unique  as  an  attempt  to  outline  the  Christian  re- 
ligion on  the  basis  of  the  revelation  in  Jesus,  assuming  that 
Christianity  as  a  doctrine  is  neither  less  or  more  than  the  teach- 
ing of  Jesus.  It  is  concerned  with  facts  rather  than  inferences 
from  them. 

The  Revelation  of  Jesus 

Cloth,  12mo,  $1.25  net 

"This  is  the  most  noteworthy  historical  study  of  the  New 
Testament  sources  of  Christian  doctrine  that  has  appeared  in 
English  since  the  publication  of  Professor  McGifTert's  'The 
Apostolic  Age.'  "—The  Outlook. 

The  First  Interpreters  of  Jesus 

Cloth,  12mo,  $1.25  net;  by  mail  $1J5 

"Nothing  could  be  fairer  than  the  effort  made  by  Professor 
Gilbert  to  draw  out  the  thought  of  the  first  interpreters  of  Christ 
without  injecting  his  own  predilections;  and  the  result  is  illumi- 
native and  helpful."—  The  Independent. 

The  Student's  Life  of  Jesus 

Cloth,  12mo,  $1.25  net 

"Acuteness,  candor,  and  conspicuous  fidelity  to  its  purpose  are 
the  notable  characteristics  of  this  .  .   .  useful  book." 

— Congregationalist . 

The  Student's  Life  of  Paul 

Cloth,  12mo,  $1.25  net 

"We  unreservedly  and  heartily  commend  this  volume." 

—Zions  Herald. 


THE     MACMILLAN     COMPANY 

Publishers     64-66  Fifth  Avenue     New  YorK 


NEW  RELIGIOUS    WORKS 

By  HENRY  CHURCHILL  KING 
President  of  Oberlin  College 

The  Moral  and  Religious 
Challenge  of  Our  Times 

Cloth,  12mo,  $1.50  net 

"Its  appearance  is  timely  and  undoubtedly  it  will  aid  in  a  better 
understanding  of  the  difficulties  that  are  to  be  disposed  of,  as  well 
as  indicate  the  spirit  of  broad  humanity  in  which  they  should  be 
approached . '  '—Knickerbocker  Press . 

"A  comprehensive  review  of  all  the  main  features  of  the  mod- 
ern world  as  man  finds  himself,  morally  and  religiously  related  to 
them,  and  a  guiding  clew  by  which  man  can  orient  himself  in 
this  respect.  It  is  clearly  and  thoughtfully  written  and  succeeds 
in  being  one  of  the  most  suggestive  of  recent  writings  concerning 
the  soul  and  duty  of  man."— Syracuse  Post- Standard. 

"With  much  insight  into  the  latest  teachings  of  economics, 
psychology  and  comparative  religion,  the  president  of  Oberlin 
studies  the  problem  of  human  development  in  its  entirety,  as  a 
world  problem.  Perhaps  the  master  stroke  of  the  book  is  the 
most  suggestive  contrast  between  ancient  and  modern  civili- 
zation."— Boston  Advertiser. 

"A  valuable  book  on  a  great  subject." 

—Kindergarten  Magazine. 


By  GEORGE  HODGES 
Dean  of  the  Episcopal  Theological  School  of  Harvard  University 

Everyman's  Religion 

Cloth,  12mot  $1.50  net 

Underlying  the  many  sects  of  the  Christian  religion  there  are 
certain  fundamental  facts  which  are  sometimes  lost  sight  of  in  the 
devotion  to  a  particular  creed.  The  purpose  of  Dean  Hodges's 
book  is  to  present  these  essential  elements  of  Christian  faith  and 
life  in  a  manner  simple,  unconventional  and  appealing  to  a  man's 
common  sense.  The  conclusions  which  the  author  arrives  at  are 
largely  orthodox,  but  the  reasoning  makes  no  use  of  the  argu- 
ment from  authority. 


THE     MACMILLAN    COMPANY 

Publishers     64-66  Fifth  Avenue     New  YorK 


RELIGION 
By  HENRY  C.  KING 

President  of  Oberlin  College 

The  Laws  of  Friendship,  Human  and  Divine 

A  summing  up  in  brief  compass  and  in  a  most  winning  manner  of  Dr. 
King's  well-known  philosophy  of  the  end  of  life  as  the  cultivation  of  friendship 
with  God  and  man. — Haverford  Library  Lectures. 

Cloth,  12mo,  SU5  net 

The  Seeming  Unreality  of  the  Spiritual  Life 

As  more  than  one  reader  comments,  this  frank  discussion  of  religious  per- 
plexities marks  a  notable  and  hopeful  advance  in  recent  years  in  rationality,  in 
charity,  in  catholicity,  in  spirituality,  and  in  real  religious  effectiveness. 

Cloth,  Unto,  SL50  net 


Personal  and  Ideal  Elements  in  Education 

"I  am  rriling  it  with  irrrat  profit.  It  is  a  magnificent  utterance."— Wil- 
liam F.  Andekson,  Secretary,  Board  of  Education  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.  Cloth,  J2mo,  SI  JO  net 


Reconstruction  in  Theology 

"Its  paces  represent  what  is  nearly,  if  not  actually,  the  highwater  mark  of 
skill  and  success  in  blending  a  fearless  yet  discriminating  progressiveness 
with  a  loyal  conservatism  in  theology."—  The  Conjrrefationahst. 

Cloth.  12mo,  SI  JO  net 


Theology  and  the  Social  Consciousness 

"A  valuable  contribution  to  current  discussion.  ...  It  ia  not  scholastic; 
it  is  not  phrased  in  the  technical  language  of  the  schools;  the  thoughtful  layman 
will  readily  understand  it.—  The  Outlook. 

Cloth,  crown  Svo.  SL25  net 


By  the  Rev.  R.  J.  CAMPBELL 

Minister  of  the  City  Temple.  London 

Christianity  and  the  Social  Order 

"There  is  a  wonderful  force  of  conviction  felt  pulsating  in  these  clear  and 
trenchant  sentences."— Standard. 

Cloth,  12 mo.  tlJO  net;  by  mail,  SI. 62 


THE    MACMILLAN     COMPANY 

Publishers     64-66  Fifth  Avenue     New  York 


RELIGION 


New  Theology  Sermons 

A  SELECTION  OF  THE   SERMONS   PREACHED  IN  THE  CITY  TEMPLE,  LONDON 

"All  who  know  Mr.  Campbell  admit  his  goodness  and  transparent  sincer- 
ity. He  has  stirred  the  intellectual  and  religious  life  of  England  as  it  has  not 
been  stirred  for  many  years."—  The  Standard. 

Cloth,  12mo,  $1.50  tut;  by  mail,  $1.62 

Thursday  Mornings  at  the  City  Temple 

A  selection  of  the  informal  addresses  which  has  done  much  to  give  Mr. 
Campbell  a  larger  personal  following  than  any  other  preacher  in  England. 

Cloth,  Unto,  $1.50  net;  by  mail  $1.60 


BOOKS  BY  Dr.  SHAILER  MATHEWS 

Professor  of  Historical  and  Comparative  Theology  in  the  University  of  Chicago 
Editor  of  the  Series  of  "New  Testament  Handbooks" 

The  Church  and  the  Changing  Order 

"  .  .  .  a  most  interesting  and  valuable  contribution  to  the  literature  of  a 
subject  that  is  growing  in  popular  attention  every  day.  While  among  the 
deeply,  really  religious  and  genuinely  scientific  there  is  no  conflict  or  antag- 
onism where  even  there  is  not  accord,  this  unfortunately  is  not  commonly  the 
case  among  the  masses  who  have  only  caught  the  forms  of  religious  and  scien- 
tific knowledge  without  their  spirit.  This  book  is  addressed  much  more,  it 
seems,  to  the  religious  than  the  scientific,  possibly  because  the  latter  have  the 
less  need  for  repentance.  Those  who  are  troubled  in  any  way  at  the  seeming 
conflict  between  the  demands  of  faith,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  experiences  of 
their  own  reason  and  the  problems  of  modern  social  and  industrial  life  will  find 
here  much  sage,  illuminating,  and  practical  counsel."— Evening  Post. 

Cloth,  12mo,  $1.50  net;  by  mail,  $1.60 

The  Social  Teaching  of  Jesus 

An  Essay  in  Christian  Sociology,  of  which  The  Congrezationalist  writes: 
"The  author  is  scholarly,  devout,  awake  to  all  modern  thought,  and  yet  conser- 
vative and  preeminently  sane.'' 

Cloth,  12mo,  $1.50  net;  by  mail  $1.60 

The  History  of  New  Testament 
Times  in  Palestine 

The  initial  volume  in  the  series  of  "New  Testament  Handbooks,"  edited 
by  Dr.  Mathews. 

New  Edition.     Cloth,  12mo,  $1.00  net;  by  mail,  $1.10 


THE     MACMILLAN     COMPANY 

Publishers     64-66  Fifth  Avenue      New  York 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 
LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


l80ec'aflMtt 

rrr;n  CO 

otr.  n  #* 

U*" 

^?s?Q,Ain5^7fi9R58                            Uni^ft^tfoKSrnia 
(6889810  )476B                                                   Berkeley 

TD   clOUJ  I 


M10G109      BTa-l 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


i 


I 


I  i 


[11 
II 


1       I 


I    liflii 
I 


Hi 
lllii!l,,n1' 

1 


ill!     ill! 


Ill 


ii  III! 


I! 


> 


II 


!  •! 


I 


